Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridlington Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Brighton Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MENTAL CASES.

Mr. A. J. BENNETT: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the exact present position of the 700 ex-service mental cases for which the Ministry will accept no responsibility, on the grounds that their malady was not attributable to or aggravated by War service; whether any promise was made at any time that these cases would be differently considered, and that they would be taken out of the pauper class and treated on a non-pauper basis; and, if so, what effect has been given to any such project?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The position of these men is the
same in all respects as that of civilian patients. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HAYDAY: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions under what authority his Department intervenes to threaten with loss of allowance the wife of an ex-service man in a mental institution who wishes, as petitioner, to have her husband out, seeing that the right of discharge was secured by Parliament in 1915 to the next-of-kin of an ex-service private patient in cases where the patient cannot be proved to be dangerous and unfit to be at large?

Major TRYON: In cases where the responsible relative insists on the removal of a certified patient from an institution against medical advice, it is the practice to warn the relative that in the event of the man's re-admission family treatment allowances may be withheld. This is a reasonabe procedure, which is exercised under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant with the greatest discretion, and solely in the interests of the patient's treatment and prospects of recovery.

Mr. HAYDAY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not say in the case of a patient being permitted out in charge of a relative, in this case the wife, and subsequently has to be re-admitted as a patient, the allowance is stopped in case of the re-admittance?

Major TRYON: Not necessarily so. It is obvious that the treatment allowance can only be granted if the patients agree to undergo the treatment which we think necessary for them.

POST OFFICE SORTERS.

Sir F. HALL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that after the termination of hostilities sorters in the London postal service were invited to compete for a number of vacancies for staff appointments in the Post Office sorter class; whether he is aware that, irrespective of age or of whether a man was married and had a family to provide for, the men were all started on a basis of 30s. a week plus bonus; and whether, considering that a Committee has been set up to inquire into the matter of the Lytton entrants, he will extend the terms of reference so as to include the ex-service
men who competed for the appointments in the Post Office?

Mr. LINFIELD: 110.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange to have the case of ex-service Post Office sorters included in the scope of the Southborough Committee's Inquiry?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington - Evans): It is the fact that a number of temporary sorters were appointed to permanent posts as the result of a limited competition held after the close of the War. Their starting pay was fixed at the rates applicable under the Standing Regulations to entrants 21 years of age and over, namely, 30s. in London and 28s. or 27s. in the provinces, plus bonus. The Southborough Committee was set up to deal only with recommendations made by the Lytton Committee, which did not deal with the starting pay of sorters; however, I have the matter under consideration at the present time.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps at once to get the Government to extend the terms of reference so that these men may be included?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. That is now being considered departmentally.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PARENTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. LOWTH: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many parents' pensions were withdrawn in the North-Western region in the six months ending 30th June, 1923; whether pensions are being terminated on the ground that, having in view the high standard of living in the parents' household at the time of enlistment, the son's contribution to the household was absorbed by the benefits received in exchange; and whether instructions have been issued by the Ministry secretariat that pensions are to be withdrawn if, in the opinion of the inquiry office, the deceased service men were well fed and well housed at the time of enlistment?

Major TRYON: Pensions to parents based on pre-War dependence are neither
withdrawn nor reduced unless it is clear that the original assessment of the profit derived by the parents from the soldier's contribution has been materially overestimated, and no instructions of the nature suggested in the third part of the question have been issued. The number of these pensions which it was found necessary to withdraw in the North-Western Region during the period mentioned is 27.

WIFE'S ALLOWANCE.

Mr. HARDIE: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the wife of an ex-service man in receipt of a pension can claim her portion of the pension without having a deed of separation; and whether, when a wife is so separated, her portion is paid to the husband or withheld by the Pensions Department?

Major TRYON: An allowance in respect of a wife is granted specifically to the pensioner, and is paid to him so long as his wife is living with and being maintained by him in his own home. When a separated wife has not substantiated her claim for maintenance against her husband no allowance is payable, but if it is clear that the husband is liable for the wife's maintenance under a Deed of Separation or a Maintenance Order, have discretionary power to grant an allowance payable direct to her.

Mr. HARDIE: In a case where the woman has not a deed of separation and is unable to live with her husband, is her portion still paid to the husband?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will send me particulars I shall be glad to go into it. I am aware of the difficulty.

Mr. HARDIE: I have sent it twice.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (REGULATIONS).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1917, empowers the Special Grants Committee to make Regulations, and that he has no power to issue Regulations under the name of the Special Grants Committee without the approval of the Committee, he will withdraw such Regulations as have been put into operation without the approval of the Special Grants Committee?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member has been misinformed. I have issued no new Regulations. The Regulations about to be issued were framed by the Special Grants Committee. They are for the most part a re-enactment of the old Regulations with certain modifications, of which some were proposed by the Committee themselves and the remainder were accepted by them as necessary to secure the approval required of me by Statute.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Have all the Regulations about to be issued by the right hon. Gentleman been approved by the Special Grants Committee and is he able to issue Regulations in the name of the Special Grants Committee when they have not been approved by or have been imposed upon the Committee?

Major TRYON: Again I am afraid the hon. Member entirely misunderstands the position. The point is that the Regulations are drawn up, but they are not dependent on the approval of the Committee. The Committee draw them up, but they are dependent on my approval.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider he has a right to publish Regulations not approved by them? I can understand his position that he should have approved the Regulations, but they cannot be regarded as Regulations of the Special Grants Committee unless the Special Grants Committee approve them.

APPEALS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by many ex-service men of understanding the effect of decisions made by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; and will he take steps to see that the decisions conveyed to the men are of such a character that when they win their appeal they may be able to understand what the exact effect of the decision is?

Major TRYON: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the misapprehension which has arisen in some cases as to the meaning of a decision by an Assessment Appeal Tribunal which sets aside a final award. I am glad to be able to assure him that steps have already been taken to make the position clear by incorporating an explanatory note in the forms on which these decisions are announced.

Mr. MORRISON: I take it, that means that steps will now be taken to make the decisions of the Tribunal plainly understood so that the men may know when they win their appeal what they have won and what the natural effect of the award will be?

Major TRYON: It is our object, and the hon. Member's also, to make quite clear the position to the applicant so that there shall be no misunderstanding.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the event of an appellant who has failed before the final appeals tribunal producing material new evidence which was not put before the tribunal, he will consider the advisability of granting a new hearing and, if necessary, introducing legislation for that purpose?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough on the 7th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of cases for the entitlement appeals tribunal outstanding in each region on the 30th June, 1923; and what is the number that have been outstanding more than three months?

Major TRYON: As the reply contains a number of figures I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


Region.
Appeals in hand at 30th June, 1923.
Appeals in hand for over 3 months.


Scotland
417
93


Northern
289
58


North Western
1,007
276


Yorkshire
551
147


Wales
394
108


West Midland
763
134


East Midland
225
59


South Western
522
136


London
1,716
424


Ulster
356
269


Ireland (South)
448
316


The large majority of these cases were in the hands of the tribunal.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 25.
also asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of Article 9 appeals that have been outstanding over two months; and how many appeals under this Article of the Royal Warrant were received in the six months ending 30th June, 1923?

Major TRYON: The numbers are 1,153 and 16,969 respectively.

Mr. WHITELEY: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions what number of cases were dealt with before the final tribunals in 1921 and 1922 for entitlement and assessment, respectively, and the number of successful cases in each year?

Major TRYON: The number of appeals on entitlement decided by the tribunal during 1921 was 43,750, of which 11,500 were allowed. The comparative figures for 1922 are 37,350 and 9,950. The assessment tribunals, which did not commence work until June, 1922, decided 13,023 appeals up to the end of that year. Of these the assessment was increased in 2,500 cases, and lowered in 23. The final award was set aside in 2,500 cases and the appeal disallowed in 8,000 cases.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to cases of maladies affecting ex-service men which have been admitted by two or more medical boards under his Department, but yet rejected by the Ministry headquarters to whom they were subsequently referred, whose duty it is to appeal against awards thus given in favour of the men; and how many cases, approximately, are there where the considered judgment of two medical boards has been upset by reference to the Ministry in London?

Major TRYON: Cases of entitlement are referred to headquarters from the region only where they present special features of difficulty. In no case is entitlement cancelled on medical grounds whether in the region or at the headquarters of the Ministry except upon the advice of a medical board (usually with a specialist on it) which has seen and examined the man.

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether an ex-service man in receipt of a pension of £2 per week for the loss of both legs
amputated above the knee is entitled to an additional sum for constant attendance allowance; and, if so, what amount and upon what conditions?

Major TRYON: In a case of this nature the man would be eligible for a constant attendance allowance if the effects of his disablement are such as to make it necessary that he should have regular assistance from another person. Each case is considered in this light, and the amount of any allowance granted varies, within the maximum of 20s. a week, with the amount of attendance required.

Mr. MORRISON: In the case of a man who lost both legs in the War and has since married, is he entitled to the allowance on the ground that his wife is taking the place of the attendant who would otherwise have to be paid?

Major TRYON: If the wife takes the place of the attendant, she can draw the amount, but the amount of the allowance depends on the extent of the man's loss through disability.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think a man who has lost both legs must in all cases require assistance, and should he not have the grant as a matter of course?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that in all cases where a man's disability is complete on account of the loss of both legs he gets full attendance allowance?

Major TRYON: I understand that is so. I am going into the point and trying to have a change and make grants on a more permanent basis if possible.

Major WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the fact that a man has lost both legs means that he must require assistance?

Major TRYON: I think that is already quite clear.

Mr. MORRISON: In the case of a man who lost both legs in 1917 and has not received constant attendance allowance, is he not entitled to it?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member sends me the case he will be helping me.

MEDICAL RECORDS.

Mr. EDE: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions what progress has been made
with the preparation of the medical records of the War; what sum has been expended on these records up to 30th June, 1923; when it is anticipated that the record will be completed; and what will be the total cost of the same?

Major TRYON: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the records of admissions to and discharges from ambulances, hospitals or clearing stations during service. These medical records have now been sorted and indexed in one register, but as the work was commenced by the War Office and completed by the statistical division of my Department as part of their general duties, I regret I am not in a position to state the cost without very considerable investigation.

ENTITLEMENT AWARDS.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any instructions, oral or written, have been issued to medical officers in the whole-time employ of the Ministry when serving on resurvey or final award boards that they should carefully examine the casis of entitlement, and if there be any doubt refer the case to medical assessors with a special memorandum; whether, as a result of these instructions, a number of pensioners have had the entitlement altered from due to to aggravated by service; what is the number of cases where the entitlement has been changed during the two years ending 30th June, 1923; and in how many of these cases where the entitlement has been changed to aggravated by has the pension ceased on the grounds that aggravation has passed away?

Major TRYON: In view of the importance of correctly determining the liability of the State in respect of compensation it has been necessary for the Ministry to satisfy itself as regards entitlement in all cases. Special Boards (not Resurvey Boards) are directed to satisfy themselves finally as to the correctness of entitlement because these Boards are concerned with the fixing of a final award. Review of entitlement may result in a change of entitlement in favour of the man as well as the reverse. Thus in a recent fortnight's work I find that there were 66 cases in which entitlement was changed to the advantage of the man from aggravation
to attributability as compared with 45 cases in which the change was in the converse direction. In every such case the man has the right of appeal to the independent Appeal Tribunal. The records of my Department do not enable me to give the full figures asked for in the last part of the question, but they show that during the two years referred to, entitlement was corrected on the advice of medical advisers from attributability to aggravation in 18,000 cases, or 1 per cent. only of all the cases dealt with in the two years.

CLINICS.

Mr. ROBERTS: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of medical referees in the part-time employment of the Ministry; what is the number who have been superseded as the result of setting up clinics under the control of whole-time officers of the Ministry; what saving has been effected in the money disbursed as treatment allowances to men on home treatment and unable to follow any employment as the result of setting up the clinics; and what is the cost of the clinics under the control of the Ministry?

Major TRYON: The number of part-time medical officers engaged in the work of medical examination and certification is 1,627, but a large number of these officers are employed as examining medical officers at clinics. I am unable to supply the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question. The estimated cost of clinics under the control of the Ministry for the present financial year is £193,000.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the information if I repeat the question later?

Major TRYON: No. I do not think it is possible to decide what decision would have been given by people if they had occupied a position which they do not occupy. We cannot say what would happen in circumstances which have not occurred.

NEUROSIS AND SHELL SHOCK.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 24.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the total number of pensioners receiving treatment for War neurosis and other shell shock conditions; and whether he is satisfied with the provision made in the different
regions for the treatment of pensioners suffering from shell shock and/or neurasthenia?

Major TRYON: The number of patients at present receiving treatment under my Department for War neurosis is about 6,900. The whole question of the treatment of this very difficult condition is kept constantly under review by my medical advisers. Full provision is made for the most modern treatment. I am glad to say that our accommodation is ample and we have no waiting list.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 27.
asked the Minister of Pensions if, when a pensioner is ordered by the Ministry's medical officers to get home treatment from his panel doctor which necessitates complete cessation from his ordinary occupation, he will in such a case grant full treatment allowance?

Major TRYON: Treatment allowances are payable in all cases where a medical officer of the Ministry certifies that the nature of the course of treatment is such as to prevent the man from providing for his own support and that of his family.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Are we to understand that in the event of a pensioner being certified by his own medical officer that he requires home treatment, he will receive treatment allowance Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases where men in that position are receiving no allowance?

Major TRYON: No. That is not the answer that I gave. The answer I gave was that where it is certified by the medical officer of the Ministry that the nature of the treatment is such as to prevent the man from providing for his own support and the support of his family, treatment allowance would then be paid.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that home treatment given by a panel doctor in many cases necessitates rest from work, and therefore there is no support for the family, and he is given no allowance?

Major TRYON: If our medical officer certifies to that effect, he gets the treatment allowance.

PERMANENT AWARDS.

Mr. A. J. BENNETT: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many pension awards, other than those for actual disablement, have now been made permanent; whether there are any awards of over eight years' standing still subject to revision; and whether finality of fixation can at least be reached in those cases?

Major TRYON: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member means by the term "actual disablement," but I may inform him that permanent awards of pension have been made in approximately 33,500 cases of disease and 120,500 cases of wounds and injuries. I am not aware that there is any case of eight years' standing still on conditional pension, but if there be such it probably is because the man is progressively growing worse, and it would be contrary to his interest to make a final award. It is the practice to consider every case with a view to a final award not later than four years after the first award of pension, and only those which are found to be unsuitable for a final award are still subject to revision.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any sort of idea as to what percentage the figures bear to the whole number of cases before him for review?

Major TRYON: The number of pensioners is something under 800,000. The hon. and gallant Member can work it out. It is our policy to push on with final awards, but some of the final awards are being set aside by the tribunal owing to men appealing against our giving final awards.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Captain O'GRADY: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has further considered the question of transferring the Yorkshire regional office from Leeds to Newcastle; whether, in view of the volume of work in the Yorkshire region, he will postpone the amalgamation for 12 months; whether, in the event of the transfer taking place, the travelling expenses of the permanent civil servants employed in the Yorkshire region, plus the cost of removal of furniture, etc., will be borne by the Ministry; and, if so,
will the same privilege be extended to such officers of the temporary staff as may be transferred to Newcastle from Leeds?

Major TRYON: I have given this matter the most careful consideration, and I regret that I do not see my way to accept the hon. Member's suggestion to defer the amalgamation. The removal expenses of the permanent staff and those members of the temporary staff whose special qualifications make their services essential at Newcastle-on-Tyne, will be borne by the Ministry. I should not be justified in agreeing that the removal expenses should be paid by the State in the case of staff whose transfer to another part of the Ministry is an alternative to discharge.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: How soon does my right hon. Friend propose to carry out this change?

Major TRYON: I cannot say the exact date, but in the autumn, I understand.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Before he does so, I hope he will consider any representations which may be made from the locality.

Major TRYON: I shall be most happy to consider any representations.

Captain O'GRADY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to pay the expenses of, say, an officer like General Kelley, £175 a year and £1,000 service pension, and yet these poor temporary men have to pay their own expenses?

Major TRYON: If it is considered essential in the public service that anyone should be moved, their expenses would be paid. I have dealt with the point several times.

Mr. LOWTH: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the Registry at Ministry headquarters there are 13 supervisory officers and 86 clerks; and will he explain why it is necessary to have one supervisor for seven clerks?

Major TRYON: The number of higher officers in the Central Registry has been reduced from 13 to 12. Of these, two are the chief clerk and his deputy, whose duties involve the general supervision of the other Registries throughout the Ministry, in addition to the control of
the Central Registry. The duties of the remainder are not confined solely to supervision, but involve the performance of superior clerical duties also.

Mr. LOWTH: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions what sum has been or will be paid in travelling expenses and subsistence allowances for the regional directors who have attended recent conferences in this House; and why the estimate for travelling expenses, headquarters staff, has been increased from £4,500 in the year 1922–23 to £7,000 for the year 1923–24?

Major TRYON: The amount paid as travelling expenses and subsistence allowance, in respect of the regional directors' attendance at the conference on the 16th May last, was £7 10s. 11d. No additional expenses for travelling and subsistence was incurred in respect of the conference on the 3rd instant, as this conference was arranged for a date on which the regional directors would be at Ministry headquarters in connection with other matters, and their return was not delayed in consequence of their attendance at the conference. The increase in the estimate, referred to in the last part of the question, arises from the transfer from regional to headquarters expenditure of the travelling expenses of certain staff. I may point out that the provision for regional travelling expenses has been reduced from £33,000 to £27,000.

Mr. EDE: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions what items are included under incidental expenses, B1, of the Ministry Vote; and what is the reason for the increase in the sum estimated under this heading for Ministry headquarters from £17,200 in the year 1922–23 to £82,000 for the year 1923–24?

Major TRYON: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. EDE: Is there any short explanation that can be given of the increase from £17,000 to £82,000 on this item?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member had better see the reply in full.

Following is the answer:

The items for which provision is made under "incidental expenses" include, inter alia, fees to registrars of births
and deaths, charges for carriage of stationery, advertisements (e.g., publication of arrangements for the making of final awards), and payments to agents abroad for work in connection with the payment and administration of pensions of pensioners resident without Great Britain, the greater part of the provision being in respect of the latter item. The increase from £17,200 to £82,000 arises mainly in respect of these payments to agents abroad, it having become necessary to provide a large additional sum under this heading in respect of services rendered by the Post Office of the Irish Free State and a further large additional sum in respect of commission payments to other agents. A small amount was provided in this respect for the year 1922–23 in view of the delay which was being experiened in obtaining and clearing the accounts of agents abroad, but measures having been taken to expedite the rendering and clearance of such accounts, it became necessary to provide a much larger sum for the year 1923–24.

Mr. EDE: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions what surgical or medical duties are performed by the seven principal medical officers attached to Ministry headquarters with salaries ranging from £1,300 to £1,800 a year; and whether any and, if so, how many of the 21 deputy commissioners of medical services with salaries of £725 to £1,125 a year are engaged on administrative duties?

Major TRYON: There are now only six principal medical officers at the headquarters of the Ministry as it has been found possible to amalgamate two sections of the work and terminate the appointment of one of these officers. The duties of five of these officers and of nine of the 21 deputy commissioners at headquarters, though in general of an administrative character, are such as could only be carried out by medical men, including, as they do, the provision of treatment, control of medical staff, organisation of medical boards, provision and inspection of hospital accommodation and equipment, and many other duties calling for specialised medical knowledge. The other principal medical officer and the remaining 12 deputy commissioners at headquarters are not employed on administrative work, but are advising medically upon cases presenting special difficulty.

DISPOSAL BOARD.

Colonel GRETTON: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister is responsible for the Disposal Board; if that body is still operating; if the Treasury consent is necessary for their transactions or any of them; and if any account has been furnished to the Treasury of the properties, stores, etc., and their value handed over to the Disposal Board by the various Government Departments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): The Disposal Board ceased to exist on the 31st March last, the work previously done by that Board being thereafter carried out by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission direct. The Commission is still in operation and carries out its work under the general supervision of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself being the responsible Ministers. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, the Disposal and Liquidation Commission have a complete list of all the property under their charge, though it will be realised that as these stores and properties were scattered all over the world and were in various stages of wear and tear, it was impossible for Departments to furnish the Treasury with their value at the time of handing over, or the original cost of each item. In addition, their realised values are shown in Command Papers presented to Parliament annually, the accounts of the Department are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and questions connected with them come under the annual scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee.

Colonel GRETTON: Will that apply to real property buildings and other things of that kind, the value of which can be ascertained?

Mr. BROTHERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish a detailed report with regard to the disposal of the munition factories which this Board had under its control?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I gave an undertaking about a fortnight ago that I would, personally, go into the whole question. I have not had time to do so—as hon. Members know, the Finance Bill was not out of the way until last week—
but that undertaking stands, and I will go into the question as soon as I possibly can.

ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 96.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how recently there was an examination of the staffing at Cornwall House; what was the total staff of all grades employed at the British Clearing Office for Enemy Debts on 1st July, 1922, and on 1st July, 1923; what was the total expense borne by British claimants in respect of the work of the British Clearing Office for Enemy Debts for the 12 months ending 1st July, 1923; and when it is proposed to reduce the cost upon British claimants by means of a further reduction of staff?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The staff of the Clearing Office is under constant review. This staff, which includes the Departments for the administration of Austrian, Bulgarian and Hungarian property and the accredited representatives in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest and their respective staffs, has been reduced in the year ending 1st July, 1923, from 1,174 to 981. The cost of the staff in this period was approximately £246,000, to which must be added rent payable to the Office of Works and other expenses, bringing the total cost for the year to approximately £290,000. No effort will be spared to effect substantial further staff reductions within the present financial year, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be very injurious to the interests of British creditors to reduce the staff below what is necessary for the efficient and prompt discharge of their work.

BURGLARIES, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. BURGESS: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of burglary occurred in Sheffield during 1921 and 1922, respectively; and will he also give the number in respect of which no arrests were made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I am informed that in 1921 there were 23 burglaries recorded and no persons charged in respect of 19 of them, and in 1922 41 burglaries and no persons
charged in respect of 36; but that three of the persons arrested in 1922 were undoubtedly responsible for nearly all the burglaries committed.

DEPORTATION ORDER (MARKS GREENBERG).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary why Marks Greenberg, a Russian, who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for stealing clothes on 16th May at Old Street Police Court, and who had been previously recommended three times for deportation, was not deported?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Before an alien can be deported it is necessary to establish the country to which he belongs, as I cannot send an alien compulsorily to any country of which he is not recognised as a national. In the case of Marks Greenberg it has so far proved impracticable, in spite of repeated efforts, to establish his nationality. Fresh efforts are being made during the man's present sentence.

BROADCASTING COMPETITION.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that listeners-in in the London area are to be asked to take part in an arranged crime in which descriptions of the fugitives will be broadcast with the object of ascertaining whether the public can identify them; and whether, in view of the possibility of the public nuisance created by such methods, he will consider the desirability of permitting such an innovation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So far as I can judge at present there is no ground for apprehending serious public mischief from the competitions in question.

LICENSED PREMISES (TURNOVER AND PROFITS).

Major Sir FREDERICK KELLEY: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that certain licensing authorities have lately called on licensed holders and asked them to disclose their turnovers and profits; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir: I have no knowledge of any facts which could form the basis of an inquiry on my part.

CONVICTION, WINCHESTER (ALBERT DAVIES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of two years' imprisonment passed by the presiding judge at Winchester Assizes recently upon Albert Davies, a private soldier, who was charged with masquerading in public dressed as a woman; and, in view of the fact that Davies was returning from a fancy dress ball, for which he had a pass from his commanding officer, whether he will look into this case with a view of recommending a remission of this sentence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The offence of which Davies was convicted was not that of masquerading as a woman, but one of a much more serious character. I have no reason to suppose the sentence was excessive.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that on the day that this heavy sentence was passed on a private soldier, a colonel from Wolverhampton, who stole £12,000, was sentenced to nine months in the second division How can he explain the disparity in these sentences?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not see what bearing one case has upon the other.

FACTORIES (INSPECTION).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 39.
asked the Home Secretary when the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1922 will be published?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot specify the precise date, which depends largely on the printers, but I am advised, after consultation with the Stationery Office, that it should be possible to publish the Report before the end of this month.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is now July, 1923, and that the Report for 1922 has not been published yet?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite realise that, but it is a very long Report and takes a long time to compile. I will do my best to have it printed earlier another year.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Prior to the War did it not come out earlier Is it not possible to have the Report printed at an earlier date?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inquire. I agree that it ought to be possible to print it earlier.

Mr. HILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone his salary until next year?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 41.
asked the Home Secretary how many factories and workshops have not been visited by one of His Majesty's factory inspectors for more than a year; and how many for more than two years?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures for 1922 were in the case of factories 34,666 and 9,009; in the case of workshops 75,474 and 33,357.

ENGLISH WOMEN POLICE, COLOGNE.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 42.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that English women police are to be sent to Cologne to look after and assist German women and girls; and if such proposal has his approval, and where the money is to be found and by whom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no information on this subject apart from what I have gathered from the Press. The individuals referred to are not members of the Metropolitan Women Police.

DAYLIGHT SAVING.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of people will not be able to take their annual holidays until after the middle of September; and whether, in view of the desirability of them obtaining as much daylight as possible for their recreation, he will extend the Summer Time Act to the 7th October instead of the 16th September?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no power to do what is suggested. The period of Summer Time is fixed by Statute, and could only be altered by legislation.

Sir F. HALL: Could not the right hon. Gentleman introduce a small Measure to extend the time?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of the difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

AIR ARM.

Viscount CURZON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the responsibility and control of the air arm of the Royal Navy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a fortnight ago to-day the Prime Minister said that he would be able to answer the question in a week or two? When may the question be repeated so as to secure an answer?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inform the Prime Minister.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this question will be answered before the Recess?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Obviously I cannot answer that.

Captain W. BENN: Has not the Prime Minister indicated that the consent of this House would be required before any definite change is made?

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether any communications have been received from the Government of the United States of America or from the Government of Japan on the subject of the projected naval dockyard at Singapore?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the negative.

Captain BENN: Were the American Government or the Japanese Government informed at the Washington Conference of our intention to establish this dockyard?

PRE-WAR PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the promised Increase of Pension Bill for pre-War pensioners and pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired prior to 1st April, 1919, will be introduced before the Adjournment of the House; and, if not, whether, in view of the necessitous condition of these men, he will make the Bill retrospective?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As has already been announced, there is not time to introduce this Bill before the autumn, when my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of providing for its taking effect as originally intended from the 1st instant, so that the delay in its introduction may not penalise the beneficiaries.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that the Bill will deal with the pre-War pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as other old pensioners?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the question to which I have just read the answer.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that these Royal Irish Constabulary are to be included in the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Bill?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can we have an assurance that these men will be included?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that the answer which I have given is quite plain, but if my right hon. Friend has any doubt about it, he could put down a question and the Prime Minister could make it clearer.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out that the question does not ask whether the Royal Irish Constabulary are included, but that it assumes that they are?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister answered this question the other day, and said that they would be retrospective from the 1st of July?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have read out the answer which was given from the Prime Minister, and I do not see how it can have more than one meaning.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the widespread interest taken in the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Bill, to be introduced by the Government during the Autumn Session, he can give any indication of the scope of the Measure; whether its provisions will extend to pensioners who do not in present circumstances come within the range of the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Act; and can he say whether the limitation of 60 years of age will be removed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it will be more convenient that this matter should be discussed as a whole when the Bill is introduced, and I hope my hon. Friend will concur in this view.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When is the Bill to be introduced?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think and hope about the second or third day after the House reassembles.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DOMINION CATTLE (IMPORTATION).

Mr. HANNON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the strong feeling prevailing in the self-governing Dominions, other than Canada, that the privilege extended to Canada of importing store cattle into this country should be extended to the other Dominions; whether the Government has under consideration the possibility of extending this concession; and whether the subject is to be included in the agenda of the Imperial Economic Conference?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have been asked to reply, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 10th inst. to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Central Bradford.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to secure the counsel of agricultural experts in this and other matters coming before his Department?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir.

RURAL TELEPHONES.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has drawn the attention of the Postmaster-General and of the railway companies to the remarks in the Report of Lord Linlithgow's Committee with regard to telephones at rural railway stations; and, if so, if he will state with what result?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been in communication with the Postmaster-General's Department, and understand that the subject referred to was under discussion as recently as last month between that Department and representatives of the railway companies. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the matter shall receive the fullest consideration.

ASSOCIATIONS OF GROWERS (LOANS).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has been in consultation with the Departments concerned with a view to implementing the recommendations of Lord Linlithgow's Committee to the effect that loans should be available for associations of growers desirous of erecting capital works, establishing co-operative auctions, marts, or other similar enterprises; and, if so, will he inform the House of the result of these consultations?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am in communication with various representative bodies with a view to discussing the lines on which assistance can best be given, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

CATTLE PRICES.

Captain DIXON: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the average price of fat and store cattle for the months of January, February, March, April, and May in 1922, and the average prices for the same cattle during these months in 1923?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the concurrence of my hon. and gallant Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


THE AVERAGE PRICES of first quality fat and store cattle (Shorthorns) at the markets in England and Wales at which statistics of prices are obtained in each month from January to May, 1922 and 1923, respectively, were as follows:—


Fat Cattle.
Store Cattle.


Month.
1922.
1923.
Yearlings.
Two-year-olds.
Three-year-olds.


1922.
1923.
1922.
1923.
1922.
1923.



per stone.*
per stone.*
per head.
per head.
per head.
per head.
per head.
per head.



s.
d.
s.
d.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.


January
…
…
14
9
14
3
14
2
13
16
21
1
20
16
26
11
25
18


February
…
…
14
10
14
4
†
13
14
†
20
11
†
26
15


March
…
…
14
10
14
0
†
13
14
†
20
5
†
25
19


April
…
…
15
2
13
11
14
12
14
5
21
13
20
13
29
2
26
0


May
…
…
15
11
14
2
15
2
14
16
22
13
21
8
30
0
26
16


* Per stone (14 lbs.) estimated dressed carcase weight.


† Markets for store stock were closed during the greater part of February and March, 1922 owing to foot-and-mouth disease restrictions.

SHOOTING LAND (RATING).

Mr. W. THORNE: 85.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Hampshire branch of the National Farmers' Union passed a resolution calling attention to the injustice of owners of shooting land taking advantage of the Rating Acts, which allow agricultural land, distinct from buildings, an allowance of 50 per cent. on its rateable value, and that 12 months ago a test case, which was brought by a man who sought to have the rates in his shooting included in this reduction, was successful; and if he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 10th May to the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) in reply to a similar question.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SUSPENSION).

Mr. ERSKINE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee to advise and report as to what, if any, further disciplinary action might with advantage be taken against Members who have been suspended on more than one occasion, in view of the fact that, under the existing procedure, a suspended Member enjoys not only freedom from attendance at the House, but also full salary during the term of his suspension?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on Monday last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of Members who neglect their duties by never coming here at all, and could not we have payment by results in this House? [Laughter.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Where is the joke?

Mr. SPEAKER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to be the judge of results?

WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) COMMISSION.

Mr. ROBERT JONES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government can give any promise or assurance that the work for which the Welsh Church (Temporalities) Commission was appointed shall be completed by the time that the four years' extension will have expired?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The Government are not in a position to give any promise or assurance of this nature, but the question of the continuance of the Commissioners will be taken into consideration at the proper time.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has detailed the. British representatives for the Assembly of the League of Nations; if so, who are they; whether it is proposed to send a woman representative; and whether the parties in this House other than that supporting the Government will be invited to nominate a representative or representatives?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to appoint these representatives just a few hours before they have to leave for the Conference, or are they to be given time to study the very complicated matters that are to come up this year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot add to the answer which I have given.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to state when these very important delegates will be appointed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will convey that question to the Prime Minister. I cannot add to the answer.

DOCK WORKERS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. BARNES: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resentment shown by dock workers towards any further reduction in their standard of living and the grave social consequences involved when men engaged in an industry lose hope of improving their conditions, he will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the conditions of labour prevailing in the ports of the United Kingdom, with special reference to the reorganisation and control which may be necessary to abolish or reduce the amount of casual labour and to provide a reasonable standard of living for those engaged in this vital national industry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, certain recommendations with regard to the points to
which he, refers were made by the Court of Inquiry presided over by Lord Shaw, and have since been the subject of discussion between the employers' and workers' organisations in the industry. I understand the position taken up by the employers is that they are prepared to consider the matter in relation to the general problem of dealing with unemployment in industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will not lose sight of the matter, but I do not think the appointment of a Select Committee would assist towards the solution of the problem.

Mr. BARNES: In view of the difficulty of the case, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this matter should be expedited, and that if necessary legislation should be introduced for the purpose of compelling employers to remove that difficulty?

IRISH INDEMNITY ACT.

Mr. MUIR: 55.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now say if the tribunal set up under the Restoration of Order Ireland (Indemnity) Act, 1923, has yet started work; and, if so, how many claims for compensation have come before it?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. No meeting of the tribunal has yet been held. Notice has been given of a preliminary meeting on the 20th of this month, at which it is intended to consider and announce the procedure of the tribunal. It follows that no claims for compensation have yet come before it.

Mr. MUIR: Is the period which has passed from the passing of the Act till the preliminary meeting of the Committee to count as time during which claims are eligible for presentation?

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that certain of these men are now out of work and on the poor-rates?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no information concerning the last supplementary question. To the first supplementary question, the answer is that the time for lodging claims depends upon the passing of the Act. I think the period was three months after the passing of the Act. The question of when the
tribunal meets to consider claims, of course, does not affect that time at all. Once the claim is lodged the applicant is protected, even if the claim is not heard until much later.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that these men are not protected if out of work, and that the weeks are passing by before they can lodge their claims?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not realise anything of the kind. The question of whether or not the claim is barred depends on whether or not the claim is lodged within three months after the passing of the Act. Any claim that is lodged now, or may have been lodged at any time since the passing of the Act, is a claim which will be considered, so long as it is lodged within three months of the passing of the Act.

Mr. MARCH: Is any provision made to support these people while they are waiting for the tribunal to deal with their cases?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; I do not know of any provision to support men waiting to have their cases considered.

Mr. MARCH: They have to go to the guardians, I suppose?

Mr. MUIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these persons who were deported and may be considering making applications have been waiting until they knew that the Committee was actually set up, which was only a matter of a fortnight ago, and that it depends on the first sitting to fix the procedure when the claims may be heard?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not aware of that, but the Committee has been set up already and its constitution has been announced. If they are waiting until the preliminary meeting, they will have ample time before the three months period elapses, as from the beginning of June.

EXECUTIONS, PENTONVILLE PRISON.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that when an execution takes place in Pentonville prison, which is in the vicinity of a
London County Council school, notices are posted upon the gates of the prison both before and after the execution, and that children on their way to school wait about hearing the subject of the notices discussed by adults; and whether, to obviate this undesirable state of things, he will consider some other method of notifying the public that a death penalty is about to be imposed, and subsequently that it has been paid?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The matter has been frequently considered and I do not see my way to modifying the existing Regulations on the subject.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Is the difficulty one of law or of administration In the latter case cannot the right hon. Gentleman establish a more humane method?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The thing has been considered more than once and it is very difficult to alter the Regulations. Obviously this is a matter which would become known to the public through the Press, apart from any other notice.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is not merely notification in the Press, but that children in the vicinity of that place have the matter brought to their notice, which is not desirable?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the Home Office under no legal obligation to post the notice?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure, but I will ascertain.

LOWESTOFT SCHOOL TEACHERS' DISPUTE.

Mr. CHARLES CROOK: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Lowestoft Bench decided on Monday 2nd July that the parents summoned by the local education authority for the non-attendance of their children at certain public elementary schools provided by the local education authority had a reasonable excuse for not sending their children to those schools upon the evidence given to the Court as to the qualifications and characters of teachers appointed to the
schools concerned; and what action the Board propose to take, having regard to the inability of the local education authority to enforce its attendance by-laws owing to its failure to maintain an adequate and suitable staff of teachers?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. On the 17th May the Board drew the attention of the authority to the provisions of Articles 10 and 27 of the Code, which require the provision of a suitable staff of teachers in each school and in the area as a whole, and expressed their doubt whether the selection of teachers had been so made as to afford a reasonable prospect that the school staffs would in all cases prove suitable. The Board will, in due course, satisfy themselves by inspection of the schools whether they are justified in paying grant without deduction, and in the meantime they are taking steps to inform themselves as to the working of the schools.

Mr. C. CROOK: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Lowestoft Education Authority in dismissing their established teachers because of their refusal to assent to a breach of the national agreement as to the Burnham scale of salaries, which agreement has been ratified by the authority; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to uphold the sanctity of such agreements?

Mr. WOOD: I am well aware of the situation which has arisen in Lowestoft, and have been doing my best to promote a settlement of the dispute. As I have repeatedly stated, the position of the Board is that they will recognise for the calculation of grant the expenditure incurred by local education authorities in paying salaries in accordance with the appropriate Burnham scales, but the payment of such salaries is not a condition of the Board's grant. It is a condition of the Board's grant that the efficiency of the schools should be maintained.

AIR EXHIBITIONS.

Mr. BECKER: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the success of the air pageant at Hendon, he
will consider the advisability of giving similar exhibitions on a modified scale in big industrial centres, especially in those areas from which he expects to recruit men for the Territorial Air Force?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut. - Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): There have been various difficulties in the way of giving exhibitions such as my hon. Friend suggests, but the question of sending a flight of machines round the industrial centres which are thought to be the most suitable is being considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for some dummy attacks to be made on the big industrial centres, just to bring home to the people what they are to get in the next war?

Sir S. HOARE: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. BECKER: Is it intended to have a similar exhibition in Glasgow, so that the people of Scotland can see the effects of aerial warfare?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICE.

CROYDON AERODROME.

Mr. FREDERICK MARTIN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the popular interest aroused by the Royal Air Force pageant, he will consider the advisability of affording to the public, and to the Members of this House, an opportunity of visiting the Croydon aerodrome with a view to demonstrating the safety and efficiency of air transport and its value to commercial, as well as to military, services?

Sir S. HOARE: Hon. Members or others who are interested in the question of the safety and efficiency of air transport will be welcome at any time at Croydon, and if any Members of the House wish to visit the aerodrome, I shall be happy to arrange for their being shown around it. As regards a demonstration, I hesitate to ask the commercial companies who use the Croydon aerodrome as their headquarters to undertake the expense of a special demonstration, but I suggest that the ordinary routine services of the air transport companies will themselves be the best possible evidence of their regularity and reliability.

Mr. MARTIN: asked the Secretary of State for Air what regular passenger and mail air services are now available in this country?

Sir S. HOARE: Three British air services, carrying passengers and mails, are in daily operation between London and Paris; London, Brussels and Cologne; London and Amsterdam. An extension from Amsterdam to Bremen, Hamburg and Berlin is operated on two days a week by a British, and on the remaining days by a German company, but this extension does not carry mails. The only internal British service is the daily one between London and Manchester, and this also does not carry mails.

Sir F. HALL: Is there any decision yet as to the extension of the flying ground at Croydon?

Sir S. HOARE: Only to this extent, that I have included a sum in the Estimates for this extension.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MARTIN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state the number of passengers carried to and from Croydon Aerodrome during the past 12 months; and the number of accidents, if any, which have befallen aircraft frequenting the Croydon Aerodrome?

Sir S. HOARE: The number of passengers arriving at and departing from the London Terminal Aerodrome, Croydon, on regular air routes during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1923, was 12,216 in British machines and 3,411 in foreign machines, or a total of 15,627. As regards accidents, by which I assume that the hon. Member means accidents involving death or personal injuries and not merely the trivial mishaps that sometimes happen on landing, etc., the answer is that no accidents of the kind have occurred to the British machines concerned during the 12 months ended 30th June last. As regards accidents to foreign aircraft, complete records are only available for accidents in this country; during the last 12 months one such accident occurred, resulting in injury to the pilot.

Mr. McENTEE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the great increase in the number of accidents
to aircraft, he will institute an inquiry into the cause of such increase of accidents; and whether he will publish statistics showing the number of accidents occurring before the introduction of the system of payment by results in aircraft manufacture and the number of accidents occurring since the introduction of this system?

Viscount CURZON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is correct to state, in the terms of the question, that there has been an increase in the number of accidents to aircraft?

Mr. McENTEE: a: The question is put to the Secretary of State for Air and not to the Noble Lord.

Sir S. HOARE: I will deal with that point. There has been no great increase in the number of accidents to British aircraft during the last three years, and the number of fatal accidents per flying hour for both service flying and civil flying on regular air routes has in fact decreased, despite the steady increase in the amount of flying carried out. I do not consider, therefore, that any special inquiry is necessary. With regard to the second part of the question, the information asked for is not readily available, and I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) on the 4th July.

Mr. McENTEE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "no great increase" After all, it is the figures which we want to know, whether there has been a great increase or not.

Sir S. HOARE: In view of the increased amount of flying there has been an actual decrease. I employed the expression which the hon. Member himself uses in his own question.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the fact that the insurance companies are considering the question of a reduction in the premiums in consequence of the comparative immunity of aircraft from accidents?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that is so, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will use his influence to see that that reduction is carried out.

Captain BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great danger to the public and the pilots of low flying outside the aerodrome in relay races, as was practised at the recent aerial pageant at Hendon; and whether he can see his way to have Regulations made whereby machines will be equipped with sealed aneroids fitted with maximum hands, so as to force pilots to attain a relatively high altitude—at least an altitude sufficiently high for them to get back in safety into the aerodrome in the event of an engine failure?

Sir S. HOARE: I am quite prepared to consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps he will send me further particulars on the subject.

FRENCH AIR ESTIMATES.

Mr. LAWSON: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can state the increased amount voted for the Air Service by the French Government since the Prime Minister's recent statement in the House to the effect that the Government had decided to strengthen our Air Service; and whether he can state the extent to which the increased amount voted by the French Government will strengthen their Air Forces?

Sir S. HOARE: Certain alterations, amounting in all to an addition of 65½ million francs, were made to the Air Section of the French Budget during the passage of the Estimates. There is no indication that this increased provision had any connection with the announcement of the British Government's Air policy made in this House on the 26th June. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the precise effect that this addition will have on the French Air establishments, but I understand that the greater part, about 50 million francs, is voted for the purchase of aeronautical material for the fighting services.

Captain BENN: Did that figure include the provision for 50 additional naval squadrons?

Sir S. HOARE: I must ask for notice of that question. The French Estimate is very complicated, and without careful analysis it is very difficult to answer the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR OCCUPATION.

BRITISH GOODS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any estimate of the amount of money that has been collected by the French Customs stations in the occupied districts of the Ruhr on the property of British merchants entering the Ruhr; whether any further progress has been made in the negotiations as to how this money is to be disposed of; and what steps are being taken to clear the matter up?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not yet able to add anything to previous replies on this subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to what steps are being taken to clear up the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware, there were conversations quite recently between the British Ambassador in Paris and the French Premier, and a statement is to be made very shortly by the Prime Minister on the general subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but are we to understand that these conversations dealt with this particular point, affecting the money of British merchants?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I did not say so. I said a statement regarding the conversations will be made, and having regard to that, it would be improper for me to make any statement at the present moment on this particular question.

ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY (NEW VESSELS).

Mr. HANNON: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the 22,300,000 guaranteed by the Government under the Trade Facilities Act to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the construction in Belfast of four motor vessels will be expended on wages in the Belfast shipyards; and what proportion will be devoted to the purchase of engines, steel, and other materials in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole of the sum raised by the Royal Mail
Steam Packet Company, to which the guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act applies, will be expended in the purchase of engines, steel and other materials in England, Wales and Scotland. The amount is estimated at £2,300,000. No part of this sum will be expended in Belfast. I understand that the North Irish Government is giving a guarantee in respect of the further expenditure in Ulster.

INCOME TAX (OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY).

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increase of retired pay, due to reassessment and granted only to officers who served in the late War, of officers who retired before the War but again rejoined and became disabled, may be made exempt from Income Tax, in addition to any disability pension, in order to place them on a similar basis to that of officers who retired before the War owing to ill-health caused by former military service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I do not see my way to adopt my hon. Friends proposal. In this connection I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Chertsey (Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. Richardson) on the 8th March. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (RATING VALUATION).

Colonel GRETTON: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how Government property is valued for the purposes of contributions to local rates; if any valuation is made; and, if so, what steps are taken to secure that the valuation is a true estimate of the value of Government property?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Government property is valued for the purposes of contribution to local rates on the same principles as are applicable to the valuation of private property of similar description; a valuation is made by the Treasury valuer who is an experienced rating surveyor; and the fairness of the estimate is secured by consultation and
discussion with the local assessment authority concerned.

Colonel GRETTON: Where are those records of valuations kept for reference and use?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The record of valuations is kept in the Treasury. These valuations are made by the Treasury surveyor with the object of seeing that Government property is properly valued.

HOFFMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government are still interested in the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Government interest in this firm was sold with effect from the 1st January, 1923. Two instalments of the purchase price have been paid; the remaining two instalments are due for payment before the close of the current financial year.

Mr. WHITE: Was there any loss on this transaction?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really cannot say. That point was not included in the question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether there was a loss?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is only called upon to answer the question as it is put.

ALLIED CONFERENCES (COST).

Mr. C. BUXTON: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what amount of expenditure was incurred by this country up to November, 1922, in connection with the conferences or meetings between representatives of Allied Governments for purposes connected with German reparations, in particular the conferences held at San Remo, Hythe, Boulogne, and Spa, and the two conferences at Brussels in 1920, the two meetings of the Supreme Council and the
two Premier's conferences in London in 1921, and the conferences at Cannes, Paris, Genoa, and London in 1922?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information asked for consists mainly of figures which, with the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The following is a list of the Allied Conferences held between December, 1919, and August, 1922, at which the question of German Reparations was discussed among other questions. At several of these Conferences many other questions were dealt with:



Approximate total cost to public funds.



£


London.—December, 1919, to April, 1920
15,900


San Remo.—18th April, 1920
850


Lympne.—15th–16th May, 1920
541


Lympne.—20th June, 1920


Boulogne.—21st June, 1920
575


Boulogne.—27th July, 1920


Brussels.—2nd July, 1920
1,456


Spa.—5th–16th July, 1920


Lucerne.—22nd–23rd August, 1920
142


Paris.—26th–29th January, 1921
384


London.—21st February to 16th March, 1921
26,001


Lympne.—23rd–24th April, 1921
146


London.—30th April to 3rd May, 1921
88


Paris.—12th–13th August, 1921
407


London.—19th December, 1921
351


Paris.—29th December, 1921
357


Cannes. — 4th–13th January, 1922


Genoa.—9th April to 18th May, 1922
7,750


London.—6th July, 1922
2,408


London. — 7th–14th August, 1922

INDIAN LOANS.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether considering that the British Government has no responsibility for loans issued by the Secretary of State
for India under the East India Loans Act, that the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom has no liability in respect of loans issued by the Government of India, and that responsibility now rests with the legislative assembly in India, he will state whether the question of treating Indian loans as trustee securities for the future has been taken into consideration?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: His Majesty's Government is under no liability in respect of trustee securities as such, whether under the Trustee Act of 1893 or the Colonial Stock Acts; but in any case, they see no reason for amending these Acts so far as stocks issued by the Government of India are concerned.

TUBERCULOSIS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 86.
asked the Minister of Health whether he approves of the charge made to tuberculous persons in the London area in respect of institutional treatment; and, if so, why, in this respect, has the institutional treatment of tuberculous persons been differentiated from that of the other infectious diseases?

Lord E. PERCY: My Department have approved generally of the arrangements made by the London County Council for the assessment of contributions payable by tuberculous persons towards the cost of institutional treatment provided by the council. As regards the second part of the question, the Statutes under which institutional treatment is provided in London for persons suffering from other infectious diseases do not authorise the recovery of any part of the cost of treatment from the patient.

Mr. THOMSON: Is there anything in the law to prevent the same treatment being applied to tuberculous cases as there is to infectious cases?

Lord E. PERCY: The law is quite different in the two cases.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 87.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the particulars which indicate that the percentage of cases of small-pox has increased
with the reduction in the number of vaccinations which have fallen from 85.6 of births in 1872–81 to 43.4 in 1912–21?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on the 4th instant, particulars as to the total number of cases of small-pox in England and Wales are not available for any year prior to 1911, and it is not, therefore, possible to give the desired information for the periods mentioned in the question. The number of cases of small-pox during each of the years 1911 to 1922, and the percentage of vaccinations to births in each of those years are given in the following table:


Year.
Cases of Small-pox.
Percentage of Vaccinations to Births.


1911
289
52.3


1912
121
50.1


1913
113
46.5


1914
65
44.6


1915
93
45.5


1916
159
44.7


1917
7
42.3


1918
63
41.5


1919
311
40.6


1920
280
39.5


1921
336
38.3


1922
973
Not yet available.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that a child has died from confluent small-pox at Gloucester, and that a grave responsibility will rest on those who, like the hon. Member, keep on putting these questions.

An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

Mr. SPEAKER: The question only asked for figures, and any hon. Member is entitled to ask for information.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. W. THORNE: 89.
asked the Minister of Health the number of
persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales at the end of March; if he is aware that the total number of unemployed and their dependants receiving relief in their own homes was 703,000 in March, and that 636,000 belong to families whose heads were insured under the Unemployed Insurance Act; and if he can state the number of persons per 10,000 of the population receiving relief at the end of March?

Lord E. PERCY: The total number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales, excluding special classes such as lunatics in asylums, at the end of March, 1923, was 1,345,634, or 355 per 10,000 of the population. The figures quoted by the hon. Member as to the numbers of unemployed and their dependants receiving relief in their own homes are correct.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (DISINFECTION).

Colonel MORDEN: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the danger of infection to the frequenters of public libraries through the use of books previously handled by persons suffering from infectious ailments; and whether he will take steps to investigate this menace to the public health by directing local authorities to use adequate disinfectants in the public libraries of this country?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but my right hon. Friend is advised that medical officers of health are fully alive to whatever danger of infection there may be from this source. Special provisions as to the precautions to be taken to prevent the spread of infection through the use of library books are contained in Section 59 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, and that Section may be put in force in any district on the application of the local authority. In the circumstances the Minister does not consider it necessary to undertake any special investigation or to issue any special instructions to local authorities on this matter.

INFANT WELFARE. CUMBERLAND.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 91.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received a copy of the quarterly report, to the end of June, 1923, of the inspector of midwives to the Cumberland County Council; and if, having regard to the fact that this Report shows that one bona fide and two trained midwives have ceased to practice in Cleator, Cleator Moor, and Frizington, and that a bona fide midwife has died, he will press upon the maternity and child welfare committee of that county the urgency of appointing qualified midwives to serve that district, seeing that practically the whole of the industries throughout that area are idle, and that consequently expectant mothers have not the means to provide adequate nourishment or for professional attention during their confinement?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the report referred to. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 5th July on this subject. A reminder was sent to the county council on 9th July.

Mr. DUFFY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the county medical officer of health of Cumberland, Dr. Morrison, stated in his annual report that infantile mortality in the urban district areas of Cumberland is 116 per 1,000, and if 101 per 1,000 infantile mortality rate is admittedly a murderous policy in Scotland, what is 116 per 1,000 infantile mortality in Cumberland?

Lord E. PERCY: I am as anxious as is the hon. Member to put this matter right, but the responsibility lies primarily with the local authority.

WALTHAMSTOW HOSPITAL (DEATH).

Mr. GROVES: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Charles P. Keating, who was given an over-dose of atropin at the Walthamstow hospital; and whether, as this circumstance has taken the bread-winner from the home, he will consider some means of ensuring the future of Mrs. Keating and her seven children, who are all under 14 years of age?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction to order such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

HOUSING (UNEMPLOYED LABOUR).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 93.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the certain shortage of building material, he will consider the desirability of employing available and serviceable unemployed labour on schemes of increasing output?

Lord E. PERCY: There is no evidence at present of any general shortage of building materials, but I have no doubt that manufacturers will increase the employment of serviceable labour up to the limits of their output capacity if they are warranted in so doing by the demand for their products.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the Noble Lord not aware that there is just now a great shortage in bricks?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMAN EXPORTS.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that export prices, fixed by the German Government, for goods shipped to this country are higher than the prices fixed for similar goods exported to France, Holland, and Belgium by a percentage more or less equivalent to the 26 per cent. duty imposed here by the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; and if he will make representations to the German Government which will have the effect of placing this country on the same footing as that of other countries?

Sir P. LLOYD - GREAME: I am aware that the minimum export prices fixed by the German trade control officers are in some cases higher when the goods are to be exported to the United Kingdom than when they are to be exported to certain other European countries, but the system of fixing differential export prices for different markets is by no means universal, nor, so far as I am aware, is it related in any way to the levy under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. It is the view of His Majesty's Government that this system is in conflict with Germany's obligations under the Treaty of
Versailles, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has accordingly been instructed to make representations to the German Government on the subject.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Colonel MORDEN: 95.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 90 per cent. of the films shown in this country are produced in the United States of America; that American producers, having made their profits on their films in the United States, are able to sell them at a very small price in England; that it is the intention of the American producers by this means to drive the British producers out of business altogether; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken to enable British producers, who employ a number of persons, to continue their legitimate industry?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to a reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Colonel Sir A. Holbrook) on the 4th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

VOI-MOSHI RAILWAY (KENYA).

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the postponement of the Colonial Office Estimates, he will issue instructions deferring the further destruction of the Voi-Moshi railway until after opportunity has been given to this House to discuss the matter.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This matter was fully explained by the Secretary of State in another place on the 5th of this month, and by myself in answer to questions on the 27th March and the 16th April, when my Noble Friend's decision was announced. I may add that instructions for the removal of the line were given last month. My be discussed on the Colonial Office Estimates, which are, I understand, to be taken on Wednesday week.

Mr. WILSON: Is it not a fact that the Governor of Kenya Colony and all the leading associations protested most
strongly against the removal of this railway, and is it not a fact that no notice at all was taken by his Department?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that every chamber of commerce was against the removal of this railway?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Chambers of Commerce in Mombasa and Kenya naturally want to keep this railway, just as that of Tanga does not. The railway in question is not in Kenya but in Tanganyika territory and if retained might divert trade from Tanga to Kenya, but a large sum of money would be required to render this temporary military railway in railway and my Noble Friend is not prepared to ask Parliament to vote extra, directly or indirectly, money for this purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister make a statement as to the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): On Monday we shall resume the Debate on the Motion relating to the Capitalist System, in the name of the hon. Member for the Colne Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Snowden).

Tuesday: Committee stage of the East India Loans, Expiring Laws Continuance, and Public Works Loans Bills; Third Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill; and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.

Wednesday: Supply: Board of Trade Vote.

Thursday: Supply: Navy Votes.

Friday: The business will be announced later.

GERMAN REPARATION.

SUGGESTED ALLIED ACTION.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will now make his statement on the European situation.?

The PRIME MINISTER: It cannot be made too clear, in the interests alike of the Powers concerned and of any who
may hope to profit by exploiting differences between them, that the sole ground of possible divergence is as to the most effective means of reaching the ends which are vital to all and upon which all are in greement. These ends are, as they have remained throughout, the payment of reparations, and the recovered security of Europe. To ensure them, the Allies have grudged nothing in the past, nor will they grudge anything in the future. This responsibility is acknowledged and is shared in equal measure by France, by Italy, by Belgium, and by ourselves. Perhaps it may be held to devolve in a more special measure upon the French and British nations by virtue of the great sacrifices which they made side by side in the years of trial, by the intimacy of fact and memory which unites them to-day, and not least by the experience which these two ancient civilisations have shared throughout the centuries.
A similar community of thought and action binds us in the present emergency to our other Allies, whose interests are in no respect divergent from our own. In the common desire for settlement and pacification, and still more for no further or unreasonable delay, we can speak together frankly and with the full comprehension of partners bound by an equal destiny to the same task. The whispers of interested parties cannot be allowed on either side of the Channel or in any part of Europe to deflect us from that duty by any reservations, or by carefully fostered misunderstandings.
In all that we are about to say or to do, His Majesty's Government are moved, as we know the heart of France to be moved—and the same applies equally to our other Allies—by the single desire that goodwill between the nations who have endured together shall be maintained and that each shall obtain what is her due.
We are as determined as any of our Allies that Germany shall make reparation for the damages done in the Great War up to the fullest extent of her capacity. We have never wavered on this point, I do not believe that our people ever will.
Indeed, we go further, and we are ready as we have said on many occasions and as was repeated at Paris in January last, to use every measure to compel Germany to pay up to the amount of her capacity.
We are conscious, however, as a business nation that if we ask Germany to pay in excess of her capacity we shall not succeed. We and our Allies will be the main sufferers, and we are firmly convinced that methods which can only result in the ruin of Germany will be fatal to this country, to our Allies and to the whole of Europe.
From the beginning we have made it clear that in our opinion the occupation of the Ruhr was not calculated to produce the maximum amount of reparation payment for the Allies. In January we made in Paris an offer which we regarded as a very generous settlement in order to avoid what seemed to us to be an economic disaster. That offer was rejected by our Allies, and since then we have stood aside animated by a spirit of sincere loyalty to the Alliance which has been and continues to be in our opinion the main security for European peace. Many of the consequences which were then anticipated are in course of fulfilment. The Allies are obtaining less reparation than they did before the occupation. What reparation they are receiving is being exacted at the price of the growing dislocation of the German economic system and as seems probable of the future total collapse of that system itself.
The French and Belgian Governments assure us that their sole object in occupying the Ruhr is to secure the payment of reparations. If that be so, the difference between us is one of method rather than of aim, but we are convinced that an indefinite continuation of this state of affairs is fraught with grave peril. Germany herself appears to be moving fast towards economic chaos, which may itself be succeeded by social and industrial ruin. The local populations are in many cases suffering severely, and there are genuine apprehensions of a shortage of food.
Nor is this a situation that concerns Germany alone. In proportion as the productive power of that country is exhausted, so does the recovery of her credit and the payment of her debts recede into a dimmer distance. Every country in Europe is paying the price for this condition of affairs. One country pays it in a steadily falling exchange, another in diminished trade, a third in increasing unemployment. If we were
called upon to state or to defend the case of our own country alone, we could without difficulty demonstrate the serious effect that has already been produced upon British trade.
In spite of very great expenditure by the State (the figure is some 400 millions sterling since the Armistice) we still have unemployment on a large scale in this country. Not only does our devastation continue instead of being repaired, but it continues increasingly as the moral effects spread among our people. Public opinion throughout Europe, and not least in Great Britain, is becoming more and more sensitive to these conditions and alarmed at their continuance. It is not too much to say that the recovery of the world is in danger, and that peace, for which so many sacrifices were borne, is at stake.
It is in these circumstances that the necessity for action has been increasingly impressed upon His Majesty's Government. The exchange of friendly conversations, useful as they are, does not appear to lead in all case to positive results. It is becoming evident that the attitude of the principal parties concerned must be more clearly defined.
If the situation has been at all correctly described in the preceding paragraphs, it cannot be left to right itself.
There will, I believe, be general agreement to these propositions—that the period of conflict should as soon as possible be terminated; that the indefinite occupation by one country of the territory of another in time of peace is a phenomenon, rare and regrettable in itself to which an honourable end should as soon as possible be found; that the debtor should not merely be called upon to pay his debts, but should be placed in a position where he can do so; that his capacity, where it is in doubt, should be tested and determined, and that united efforts should be made to accomplish these ends.
Peace will not finally be obtained and recovery will not be ensured until a solution has been found to three great questions. They are (1) the payment of Reparations, (2) the settlement of inter-Allied Debts, and (3) the security of a pacified Europe. It is to these questions that the attention of the world should be turned.
In the pursuit of these aims, His Majesty's Government are so far from desiring to deprive France and Belgium of their legal claims that they wish to assist them in their realisation.
Our desire is for advance, if it can be made, and for finality if it can be attained. And in these aspirations, as well as in our view of the general situation, we are hopeful of obtaining the concurrence of France and Belgium, no less than that of Italy. Indeed, we have every reason to believe that the views of the Italian Government are in substantial agreement with our own.
What, then, are the steps which we think ought to be taken? The German Note of 7th June, in reply to a definite suggestion which had been addressed to the German Government, proposed an investigation of Germany's capacity to pay by an impartial body, coupled with an engagement to pay the amounts determined in the manner that might be proposed.
It further contained the offer of a series of concrete guarantees. We do not think that these suggestions, whether they be adequate or not, should be ignored. We are unable to agree that a correspondence of this nature upon matters affecting the interests of all should be wholly one-sided, or that proposals, which may be found to contain in them the germs of a possible settlement, should be treated with indifference.
We hold that they should be examined and explored in order that we may discover whether there lies within them the possibility of progress. Understanding that the French and Belgian Governments are not disposed to take the initiative in suggesting a reply—although we would gladly have welcomed any such action on their part—we have informed those Governments, as also the Italian Government, that we are willing to assume the responsibility of preparing a draft reply ourselves. Adhering, however, as we do to the view which we expressed on the last occasion that united action is better than separate or isolated action, we shall submit the reply with the least possible delay to our Allies, for their consideration and remarks, and we indulge in the hope that we may be able to arrive at an agreement with them as to the terms.
What the exact nature of the reply should be it will be premature to discuss at the present stage.
In formulating these views, His Majesty's Government are not without hope that they may be expressing Allied sentiments as well as their own. We do not believe that in principle we are widely separated, if at all, from them. Divergence of method should not be incapable of resolution. So far as united action is possible, we shall continue to pursue it, as we have endeavoured to do all along, and we shall confidently invite the sympathetic consideration of the whole of our Allies and of all interested States to proposals which will have no other aim than the pacification of Europe and the recovery of an exhausted world.

Mr. MacDONALD: The circumstances, of course, forbid any comment, but I should like to ask three questions. Would you allow me, before asking those questions, to say that on this side of the House there is a most frofound hope that the efforts made by my right hon. Friend will be successful in disentangling the terribly entangled scheme of European politics. My questions are these: Are we right in assuming that the latter part of the declaration relating to the preparation of a reply to Germany will be proceeded with at once? May I also ask whether the Government have any intention of communicating, at any rate for the purposes of information, that reply to the United States; and, finally, am I right in assuming that it is the intention of the Government to give an opportunity for a discussion at a convenient time, but before the House adjourns for the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the first question, the reply to Germany will be proceeded with forthwith. In answer to the second question—

Mr. MacDONALD: Whether it will be communicated to the United States?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think probably, but I should like a question put on that point definitely to-morrow. With regard to the third question, the House will certainly expect to have a discussion before it rises, and I hope that it may be possible to utilise, as has often been done before, the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask one question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I have postponed my own question on the Paper. May I ask whether we have approached or have been approached by the United States in any way at all up to the present time? I am not asking now about the reply being communicated to the United States, but have there been any conversations at all, and, if not, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.

RATING RETURNS BILL.

Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee D.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read;

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

BILLS PRESENTED.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to transfer the powers and duties of the Ministry of Agriculture, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, so far as they relate to Scotland, to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland," presented by Lieut. - Colonel ARTHUR MURRAY; supported by Mr. Frederick Martin and Major McKenzie Wood; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

OFFICES REGULATION BILL,

"to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM; supported by Mr. Snowden, Mr. Broad, Mr. Ede, Mr. Weir, Mr. Robert Murray, Mr. Middleton, Mr. Robert Morrison, and Mr. Cecil Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Gilbert to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Education (Institution Children) Bill and the Railways (Authorisation of Works) Bill [Lords]); and Mr. Ponsonby to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Bill) and also to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Cautley, Mr. Garland, Captain Sidney Herbert, Sir Ernest Pollock, and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B: Mr. Frank Gray.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Fisher; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Moreing and Mr. Tom Williams.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following nine Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Education (Institution Children) Bill and the Railways (Authorisation of Works Bill [Lords]): Colonel Ashley, Major Attlee, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Dunnico, Captain Sidney Herbert, Captain Hudson, Mrs. Philipson, Major Viscount Sandon, and Mr. Edward Wood; and (in respect of the Education (Institution Children) Bill only): Mrs. Wintringham and Sir Ryland Adkins; and (in respect of the Railways
(Authorisation of Works) Bill [Lords] only): Mr. Pringle and Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill [Lords]): Mr. William Murdoch Adamson, Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Mr. Ede, Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Harbord, Captain Sidney Herbert, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Sutcliffe, and Colonel Lambert Ward.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

15TH ALLOTTED DAY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS II.

HOME OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £185,969, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."—[Note: £180,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I had hoped that this Debate would have been opened by a speech from the right hon. Gentleman, but no doubt at this early stage he does not feel called upon to defend his Department. One cannot help sympathising with the right hon. Gentleman in the scope of the work which his Department covers, but during the last few months there has been an overemphasis of one phase of his work to the neglect of other phases. The right hon. Gentleman, in the administration of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, has shown a vigour and a determination and an enthusiasm which many of us wish had been applied to other sides of his work. Had the same enthusiasm and energy, and, if I may say so, the same dash, been applied to the administration of the Factory and Workshops Act or to the removal of the evils connected with the police and prisons system as the right hon. Gentleman has shown in harrying deportees out of this country, he might have gone down to posterity with a halo of true reform about him which would have made him unrecognisable to his friends on the Treasury Bench. But he has chosen to neglect—so we believe—certain aspects of his work that we regard as being of the utmost importance. I had
on the paper this afternoon a question about the publication of the Report of the Factory Inspector for 1922. I wish to protest against the delay there has been in publishing the only information which is available for anyone who wishes to speak upon the administration of the Factory and Workshops Act. Had the right hon. Gentleman shown the same speed and rapidity in publishing that Report as he showed in deporting 100 odd people we should have the Report before us now and be in a much more favourable position to deal with the work of his Department.
The administration of our industrial laws, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is primarily a question of inspection. In the years before the War Members of the Labour party drew attention to the impossibility of the existing factory inspection staff carrying out their duty of administering the law, but during the last few years, so far as one can ascertain, not only has there been no expansion in the staff, but there has been an actual diminution. Unfortunately, we do not know the number of inspectors during 1922. The right hon. Gentleman up to the present time has withheld that information from us. But I believe it is true to say that the number of factory inspectors in 1921 was fewer than in 1914, and, so far as I am aware, the number has not been substantially increased since 1921. Since the beginning of the War the actual number of what are called effective visits under the Factory and Workshops Act has been reduced very substantially. I believe that in the year the War broke out there were something over 500,000 effective visits. Since the War and during the last year for which figures are available the number of effective visits has been something between 300,000 and 400,000. While there has been little alteration since the beginning of the War in the number of factories, warehouses, workshops and docks coming within the scope of the Factory and Workshops Act, there has been, as the figures show, a very substantial increase in the number of works and departments coming under Regulations or special rules. The need for inspection, therefore, is obviously greater. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentick) this afternoon asked a question
about the number of factories and workshops which had not been inspected for a year or two years, and the figures were amazing and showed the inadequacy of the existing factory inspection staff.
That inadequacy is becoming more and more obvious because of the increase in the number of factories and workshops where special rules and regulations apply. As long ago as 1919 the chief factory inspector in his report said that "individual inspection tended to occupy more and more time owing to the ever increasing number of orders put in force and the detailed inquiry rendered necessary in the framing of orders." If that means anything, it means that during the last few years the administrative burden upon the factory inspectors of this country has been steadily increasing, but there has not been a commensurate increase in the staff to cope with the work. On the contrary, since 1914—at least up till 1921—there has been an actual decrease in the number of factory inspectors. There is a clear need for a very substantial increase in the number of inspectors, and more particularly in the number of women inspectors. It is fair to say that if all the money which directly and indirectly has had to be spent as the result of the right hon. Gentleman's escapade with regard to the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act had been devoted to an increase in the factory inspection staff, considerable improvements in industrial conditions could have been made as the result of more effective inspection. The fact that for all these different matters coming under the Factory and Workshops Act you have not got a sufficient number of inspectors affords infinite opportunities for the evasion of the law. The fact that inspection in these cases is not carried out as thoroughly as it should be must mean industrial inefficiency. It is agreed that the work of a factory inspector is largely that of the propagandist, as well as that of inspection. One finds in the last Report of the Home Office, which is very much out of date, references where an inspector describes several large new factories which have been erected without adequate provision for ventilation. Many inspectors express surprise at the indifference shown by many employers in regard to the
importance of proper lighting in factories and workshops. Had there been a sufficiently large and well equipped Department of inspectors that kind of educational work could have been carried on, and those large new factories, in which hundreds of workers are going to work for years, would have been equipped with proper ventilation. Had there been more inspectors impressing upon unenlightened employers the importance of proper lighting and ventilation, we should not have found factory inspectors in 1921 expressing surprise at the little interest shown by employers in these questions. It is that kind of thing which is year after year perpetuating a system of industrial inefficiency, which is one of the great drags on that productivity upon which hon. Members opposite are often so eloquent.
That is not the only side of the work of the factory inspectors. They have to deal with evasions of the law, and their visits ought to be sufficiently frequent to make evasions of the law impossible. In the last Factory Inspector's Report, which is woefully out of date, we are informed that in 1921 there were 573 prosecutions, and apparently they were good cases, because the vast majority of them were successful and the inspectors obtained convictions. I suggest that 573 is not the number that represents the total infringements of the Factory and Workshops Act during 1921. Having regard to the fact that thousands of factories and workshops have not even been inspected or seen for over two years we are entitled to assume that the 573 prosecutions in 1921 really represent only a fraction of the number of cases in which the Factory and Workshops Acts have been contravened. Does anybody for example believe that in 1921 there were only 40 caess in which the sanitary provisions of the Factory Acts had been broken, or that there were in the scores of thousands of workshops employing millions of people, only 110 cases where the safety regulations had been ignored, evaded, or broken. Does anybody seriously believe, as the Factory Inspector's Report suggests for 1921, that during the whole of that 12 months there were only two cases of infringement of the Truck Acts The number of inspectors is so small that they cannot do a tithe of the work, and the consequence is that a very large number of workpeople, men, women
and children, have often to work under conditions which are a direct infringement of the law, and which it is the Home Secretary's business to prevent. Had the right hon. Gentleman shown that dash with regard to Factory Inspector-ships that he showed with regard to the Irish deportees, I am quite sure that he would have rescued a very large number of working people, including boys and girls, from conditions which are in fact an infringement of the law.
Look at the enormous toll of industrial accidents every year in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman had presented us with the Factory Inspector's Report for last year we should have been aware now how many industrial accidents there were, but we have to rely on out-of-date information, and the only figures which are available are those for the year 1921. Those figures do not state the number of industrial accidents in this country, but only the total number of accidents reported, and they amount to 92,000 of which 950 were fatal cases. Had there been as effective administration of the Factory Acts, and as zealous an administration as there was a few months ago in regard to the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, a very large number of those accidents would not have taken place. Therefore, I think we are entitled to hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible for a considerable number of those accidents in so far as they are due to the lack of factory inspection, and therefore responsibility in this matter lies at the door of the Secretary of State.
It is absurd to think that in these days of safety appliances there should be nearly 100,000 accidents reported every year. What I wish to suggest to the Home Secretary is that he is not getting every ounce of value out of the industrial legislation which it is his duty and privilege to administer. It is not the fault of the factory inspectors, because on the whole we believe they are a magnificent body of men and women, and what is needed is an accession to their number which might have taken place had not the sacred name of Geddes been invoked and a greater interest on the part of the Secretary of State. Really in this great work of factory inspection and the administration of our industrial laws you need the same kind of drive which the right hon. Gentleman exhibited on the occasion to which I have already referred.
This question of the effective regulation of industrial conditions, so far as they have been legislated for, is one which comes close home to hon. Members on these benches, and we have a right to ask that when laws have been placed on the Statute Book dealing with these questions, what are called the whole resources of the State should be put behind them. I submit that the Home Secretary has not had time to do this, because he has been occupied with other duties, and he has been unable to put behind this legislation, as he ought to have done, the whole of the resources of the State.
I do not blame the officials of the Home Department, but we must, I fear, blame the right hon. Gentleman as being responsible for the dilatoriness which is little short of a scandal. Last August there was a conference held to consider the question of framing Regulations for buildings in course of construction, alteration, repair, and demolition. This is not the place for me to deal with all those crane crashes and the serious accidents that occur day after day amongst workers employed on and about cranes, because we have almost entirely excluded that form of employment from regulation. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office at least realised that there was a defect in the Regulations with regard to this kind of work, and a conference was called. The trade unions concerned were consulted, and they put forward their views. It is now July, 1923, and in the interval the right hon. Gentleman has taken office, and we are still waiting for those Regulations to be put into force. I have in my hand a copy of the Regulations marked "Draft" and with the date blank, and that blank still remains. I am told that the explanation is that these things take some time. If the right hon. Gentleman happened to be a crane worker I imagine the time taken would be a great deal shorter, and those Regulations would have been actually in force before now. It is serious that after a long time, when the Home Office has just been aroused to the importance of framing Regulations with regard to buildings in course of construction, alteration or demolition, that having taken the plunge last summer, a year afterwards those Regulations have not yet been put into operation.
The Home Department is not only dilatory in these Matters, but it acts
illegally. There is on the Statute Book an iniquitous piece of legislation which permits a two-shift system of working amongst women and young persons under certain conditions. That legislation was opposed from these benches, but it was put through, I believe, at the instance of certain employers, who wished to carry on the two-shift system which they thought rather cheap during the War period. Last year, in August, the Home Secretary at that time made an order authorising two day-shifts of women and young persons of 16 years and upwards in certain departments of Messrs. Lever Brothers, at Port Sunlight, subject to certain conditions. Under the Act two shifts may be worked on a joint application by employers and workers, but in this case the Order was issued in spite of the opposition of the organised women trade unionists in that firm.
The two-shift system was put into operation at Messrs. Lever Bros. works 24 days before the Secretary of State's Order was issued. At first girls under 16 were employed, contrary to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920. When the workers at Lever Bros. were consulted as to their willingness to work two shifts, six only out of 308 expressed willingness to do so, and that in the face of the fact they were told that 200 would be dismissed if it were not agreed to. That is I suppose what is called freedom of contract as between the two parties. In spite of the views of the women and girls concerned the shift system was adopted, and the firm took a ballot requiring each woman and girl to put her tally number on the paper. Of course, that destroyed the validity of the ballot entirely, as anyone connected with industry knows. It was a distinct infringement of the law. We have here an instance of a huge firm defying the State. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman deal as drastically with Lever Bros. as with the people to whom I have already referred? I suggest all should stand on the same footing. On some occasions the Home Secretary has exhibited a vigour which he has not exhibited as regards this question. Seeing that his work is largely industrial and that he is the guardian of our liberties, I suggest it is right the House should demand a full and generous inter-
pretation of the working of the Acts, and a real attempt to see that they are carried out and properly honoured.
Then I would like to refer to a rather ancient question, but one which the right hon. Gentleman might have taken up. By so doing he would have added lustre to his name. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had given a little of his superfluous energy to convincing the Government of the importance of putting into operation the Washington Hours Convention. He has had several months to think about that, but he has been busy on other things of rather less importance. It would have given him an opportunity of adding a jewel to his crown. It is a rather tarnished crown, and the addition of a few jewels of that kind would have made him a highly popular and really respected person throughout the length and breadth of the country. Is it even now too late to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance, nationally and internationally, of honouring the Washington Convention as regards the hours of labour?
There is just one other question of a similar kind on which I would like to touch and it is the White Lead Convention. There are far too many cases of lead poisoning at the present time, and I put that fact down to the ineffective administration of the regulations by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. In the case of white lead we have had an international agreement, approved not merely by the workpeople employed in the use of paint, but also by the employers. The whole industry is in fact united, and there is no real reason which should debar the right hon. Gentleman from enforcing on the Cabinet the importance of an early ratification of the White Lead Convention. It has been proved to be a desirable thing to limit and on some occasions to prohibit entirely the use of white lead, but having regard to our experience, and knowing the number of cases which are brought to the Home Secretary's notice day by day—and we do not get the full figures for he has no power of securing the total number of cases—I would ask him to-day to take action which would at least gain for him some credit in his disastrous year of office. Let him take to himself credit for one good thing done. If he can inform the House that the
Government have decided on his initiative to ratify the White Lead Convention no one will cheer him more loudly than the Members on these benches. Really our case against the Home Secretary is that he has done those things he ought not to have done and left undone those things he ought to have done. I will not pursue the quotation because I believe there is health in the right hon. Gentleman. I simply wish to see signs of it.
I submit in all seriousness that these big questions of industrial regulations, the regulation of industrial conditions, the diminution in the amount of industrial disease and the prevention of accidents, involve an enormous amount of work, and the great mass of working people employed under the Factory and Workshops Act, which comes under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, ought to feel that they have in the Home Secretary a man who is prepared to put his weight behind the full administration of all those laws in the interests of the workpeople and in the interests of industry as a whole. If a good deal of that legislation were carried whole heartedly into effect it would do far more for industrial efficiency and for productivity than all the fancy nostrums put forward by hon. Members opposite, and at the same time it would lead to a substantial improvement in the health and in the outlook of working people.
I do not think many Members realise exactly what it is like to work in the thousands of workplaces which are inspected by the right hon. Gentleman's office. It is not a pleasant life, and, with these Acts on the Statute Book for the specific purpose of protecting the workpeople themselves, we have a right to ask and to expect the fullest and most sincere administration. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be a Crusader. Instead of waving his sword at deportees, he might have waved it at thousands upon thousands of unenlightened employers who do not know their own best interests. I hope that during the coming year the right hon. Gentleman will not engage in any more little adventures such as the raking up of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, but that, repentant and in sackcloth and ashes, he will be able to tell the House that he has done his best to live up to the high responsibilities of his office. It is on
these grounds I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

Mr. TURNER: I desire to second the proposition of my hon. Friend. I have no complaints personally against the Home Secretary or his factory inspectors, and I am not going to enter into details on these matters. All I wish to say is that factory inspection is not being carried out as fully and as quickly as it might be. It cannot possibly be, because there are not inspectors enough to inspect the factories and workshops in this kingdom. If one examines the Home Office total of factory inspectors, it will be seen that they could not go round to all the factories and workshops of this kingdom within a period of two and a half years. Even although they might make but very short visits to each place they could not visit all those which require inspection. Supposing all the inspectorate in Yorkshire were on duty now. They could not visit during this hot weather all the wool combing institutions which are places that specially require inspection from the point of view of ventilation. They could not inspect the smaller factories, and point out the need for ventilation and fresh air. When there are a large number of women employed in a wool-combing department the atmosphere is as thick as it is outside this afternoon and they have to stew in it for a period of eight and a quarter hours. It seems therefore desirable that every possible facility should be given for the inspection of these places. What happens? Many of the girls thus employed are at teatime simply exhausted. I know it, because I have a family of daughters. When women have arrived home at teatime at half-past five they been so thoroughly exhausted that they could not tackle the food put before them, and could not get that restorative energy which the food should give them. They are too exhausted by reason of the heat and the lack of proper ventilation in the workshops and therefore it is, as I say, that these workshops especially require inspection.
I have no complaint at all to make about the bureaucracy of the Home Office. My only point is that there are not sufficient persons to see that the Regulations which Parliament has laid down for observance in the various
factories are properly carried out. There is one thing in regard to which the Home Office has been particularly slack during the past few years. There have been a tremendous number of breaches of the Truck Acts. Women have been fined on the most flimsy excuses. I saw yesterday a long list of fines which are inflicted upon workpeople in a factory in Leeds. One of these fines is to be imposed if the girls were heard singing at their work. Bless my life, any decent man knows that if the girls are singing at their work, and if the lads are whistling at their work, the activities of the factory are going on all right, as it means that the workers are happy. But here you have a declaration by a firm that if the work girls are heard singing, and I presume it means equally if the lads are heard whistling, they are to be liable to a fine. At the bottom of the long list of fines it is announced that an ordinary official receipt will be given for the fines inflicted. But there are certain fines which the Home Office are not paying sufficient attention to. There are fines being inflicted upon women because they are five minutes late, and for that they are fined an hour's wage. God help me; I have seen Ministers of State come late to their duties. They are never fined. They are raised to the Peerage or they are made baronets, or get some other honour conferred upon them. If these girls are five minutes late, then, by a strict Regulation of the factory, they have an hour's pay taken off, and yet nothing is ever done by the Home Office to correct the employers who do that. Thank God, they are only a few, but they are there, and, where injustice is done, we have to defend the people to whom that injustice is done. I think the Home Office are not as much alive in that direction as they should be.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I draw attention to the fact that there are not many employers present on the opposite benches?

Mr. TURNER: One thing that the Home Office seems to expect is that the trade unions shall find them all their cases, but that is the business of the inspectors more than of the trade union officials. Many times, when the reports have been sent forward, we have seen them, as we do in a friendly fashion,
because we are friendly with all of them, as we want to be with every one. We are asked to send our cases and they will be looked into, but it is their business to make a regular inspection. The Home Office are not enough alive on the question of accidents in our mills and workshops. The Report for 1921 indicates that the accidents were less than in the previous year, but, of course, that was when the slump came in trade, and one would expect that, with a 20-weeks' miners' dispute, and mills stopped for want of coal, the number of accidents would be less. It is still tremendous, and we want more inspection in regard to safety appliances than there is at present.
There have been too many hoist accidents in our textile mills recently. It may be said that firms here and there have the most up-to-date appliances, but there are still many very old-fashioned concerns. In my inspections as an individual during past years, I have seen some very antiquated hoisting systems, and the accidents have been too numerous during the last 12 months to be at all satisfactory. Again, in the last Report of the Factory and Workshops Department, the question of accidents in self-acting mills is dealt with. It is pointed out that there is a reduction of the number of accidents in self-acting mills, and that is quite true, but I want to see more Regulations in regard to cleaning those mills, drying under the going part, taking "food" off the head where the faller sets, or when anyone is in a dangerous position, and that there shall be between the headstocks and various parts of the mills sufficient room for people to pass. Women wear skirts, and it is much more difficult for a woman to avoid accidents even than for a man, and the men wear smocks, and accidents occur there, and also on account of looms being too close altogether.
I think our factory inspection department ought to receive instructions from the Home Secretary that adequate attention should be given to this question of accidents in our mills. Imagine a young woman, 16, 17, or 18 years of age, going to work this morning in the bloom of youth, and then, in the course of an hour or two, through machines being too close together, or, perhaps, through faintness owing to lack of proper ventilation, or any one of a multitude of things that
could be avoided by careful inspection and management, having a finger or a hand taken off, or her scalp torn off, destroying her beauty for the rest of her life. We see these effects daily among our young people in our industrial towns. I have seen some tremendous tragedies in our family circles in connection with accidents in our mills. The question of fire escapes is mentioned in the Report. I know that the Factory Acts were altered many years ago, and it was laid down that there should be fire escapes in mills employing, I think, more than 40 persons, but some of the small, ramshackle places do not employ 40 persons, and it is they that are the death-traps. There has been, I admit, a great improvement, because of the state of public opinion and the pressure of our trade unions upon this question of fire escapes, but it seems to me that much more should be done.
I want to make a suggestion to the Home Office. I know that they have been trying to humanise factory inspection during the past 10 years. They have held conferences with the industrial councils of employers and employed to see whether certain reforms could be or should be carried out. We have had conferences in connection with weight-lifting and, at the instigation of the Home Office, through the industrial council, we have arrived at an agreement that certain young persons shall not lift the tremendous weights that they have been lifting, leading to severe injuries. That is the right thing to do, but I suggest that they might go even a step further, and that some of the proposals which were foreshadowed before the Safety Committee should be put into operation, such as elected committees in every mill and workshop of any substantial size, and a monthly inspection of all such establishments by qualified persons appointed by the Committee, to see, for instance, whether there is room through the loom gate or round the end of the loom, to avoid what happened a few weeks ago, when a girl was weaving in a loom and the employers put in a new door, through which this poor girl caught a draught from the effects of which she was dying. Had there been such a committee of inspection, common sense would have shown them that a door causing such a draught should not have been put in. In the pits there is a
monthly inspection, and although, of course, the pits are more dangerous, there is still a great deal that requires looking after in regard to safety in our mills.
If we can save a life or a limb by reasonable inspection, I think it ought to be done more thoroughly than it is now. In some of our mills, for instance, the staircases are a disgrace to the firms who own them. There are thick lumps of greasy matter on the stairs, and when a man or a woman has to carry a heavy load up or down they are in great danger of slipping, especially on a day like this, when the grease melts on account of the heat, and they may break a limb or injure themselves in some other way. Those staircases ought to have the attention of the inspectors. It is, perhaps, only a small patch of grease on a faulty step; but it is there. We want safety in our workshops, for there is no satisfactory compensation for the loss of a limb. Some time ago, an enormous change was going to be made in regard to dining and rest rooms in our various industrial concerns. It was foreshadowed years ago, but that expensive economist, Sir Eric Geddes, suggested cutting down expenditure, or stopping increased expenditure, and the result has been that none of these useful things have been done. I have had to eat my breakfast and dinner among a lot of machinery. We were used to it then, but this is the 20th century, and 19th-century ideals are not sufficient as regards this question of taking meals among the machinery, with all the dirt and dust in a milling or dyeing place. There should be a dining place in all mills. Many employers have established dining and rest rooms, but the Home Secretary ought to prod the large number of people who do not do these things by making Regulations in that direction.
I want to compliment the Home Office on one thing, and that is that they are maintaining the anthrax station at Liverpool. Anthrax has changed in its incidence considerably in my life-time. Forty-five years ago, anthrax usually occurred in the worsted trade of Bradford and the surrounding district. It was generally found in the wool-sorting department. Then it came into the wool-combing department, and the Home Office made Rules and Regulations, the effect of which was to check that terrible disease. Then it transferred itself, or, at least,
it showed itself, in the East India wool section, and in the blanket department at Dewsbury and the rug department at Heckmondwike. Where East India wools have been used, there have been far too many cases of anthrax during the past 10 years. I want to see the Home Office a little more active in this matter, so that some of the Rules and Regulations that apply to the wool-combing and wool-sorting departments in the worsted trade may apply to that part of the trade in which East India wools are used. At the Industrial Council last week a resolution was agreed to by both sides and sent to the Home Office expressing the hope that the Liverpool station would be allowed to go on, and I hope that the suggestions made at Geneva will not be checked because of the question of expenditure.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) mentioned a very important and pressing question in connection with the 48-hour week. We have had it by agreement. It came in consequence of a request made by the employees to the employers. It was given in times of good trade and after professions of good will and fraternity between all classes, but there are here and there an odd employer or two who represent the bad man of the family, who occurs in all families and in all circumstances and all grades of society. For the sake of the good employer, who wants to observe the 48-hour week, and for the sake of our name as the nation, which pledged itself at Washington in 1919, it does seem to me that this 48-hour week ought to be given Statutory force. My last few words are on a quite different subject. Most of the people who get into prisons come from my own working class, and it is not because they are born criminals but because they are being driven there. I suggest that, although the name "House of Correction," given when the prisons were established, was the right one then, our prisons now ought to be moral sanatoria.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to prisons on this Vote. There is a special Vote dealing with prisons, and he should make his remarks in regard to prisons on that Vote.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: On a point of Order. Are we not now
discussing the salary of the Home secretary, and is it not possible to discuss all the activities of the Home Office under that head?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. It is permissible to discuss any question over which the Home Secretary has powers on this Vote, except those questions like prisons and police, for which there are separate Votes.

Mr. TURNER: I will not enlarge upon it, except to say that, as the Home Secretary is the custodian of the prisons, I was led to believe that I could refer to them on this Vote. I agree that it is largely the question of factory inspection that we are discussing, but the Home Secretary has had a bad job since he came into office, in having to hang people by deputy, and I wanted simply to mention that hanging does not do anyone any good, and that a prison should not be the place where hanging takes place.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is certainly not in order.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. TURNER: All right, I will give in, and will simply say to the Home Secretary that I want him to be as alert as he possibly can in increasing factory inspection for the purpose of saving as many limbs as possible, especially in the case of our women and children; and, in addition, to maintain the great name that this country has had for always keeping its bargains, or trying to do so, with other nations. This nation has not kept its bargain on the 48-hour working week. In my young days we sang the song,
Eight hours' work, eight hours' play,
Eight hours' sleep, and eight bob a day.
This question of the 8-hours' days is long overdue. Peel, in this House in 1832, said there ought to be an 8-hours' day for children and adults, and, God knows, in these sweltering days, it is two hours too long.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am afraid I cannot claim to discuss this subject with the same intimate technical knowledge as the two hon. Members who have just spoken, but I have taken an interest in this question for a great many years, and I hope the Home Secretary will not take it amiss if I associate myself most heartily with what has fallen from my hon. Friends opposite, and draw his
attention to the utter inadequacy of the factory inspectorate of this country. I think it is high time he gave it his consideration. It is, to my mind, a deplorably penny-wise, pound foolish policy. What you are saving in your factory inspectors' salaries you are losing in damage to the community and in the waste of the life of the nation. As my hon. Friend who moved this reduction said, the inadequacy of the inspectorate is patent and manifest. During the War there was no increase at all, and at the end of the War, though there was a great increase in the number of factories and workshops, there was no increase, but rather a reduction in the inspectorate, and now the factory inspectorate staff, I believe, is only 205 for 280,000 factories and workshops. That is to say, each inspector every year has to inspect 1,400 factories and workshops, which is an utterly impossible and a ridiculous job. The Home Office, very rightly, brought out several codes of Regulations dealing with dangerous trades, and I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that these Regulations must be, to a very large extent, a farce, if your inspectorate is so utterly inadequate as it is at the present moment.
I am quite willing to allow the Home Office a good mark for having increased the technical inspectorate, and I am quite willing to agree as to the usefulness of the Safety First movement. But, after all, that Safety First movement can only save accidents through sheer carelessness on the part of the workers. The only safeguard to the workers is the constant pressure of the inspectorate. If you want confirmation of what I have been saying, you have only got to turn to the Factory Inspector's Report, and almost on every page of that Report you will see allusion to endless and unnecessary-accidents and unnecessary ill-health caused to the workers by the inadequacy of the inspectorate. I hope my right hon. Friend will not imagine for a moment I am making any charge against the officials of the Home Office. I know full well their earnestness and activity, and my only feeling towards them is one of sympathy that they have to perform the hopeless task of seeing a code of Regulations properly administered when those officials are so small in number. On almost every page of this inspector's Report you will see allusions to needless
accidents. Take, for instance, the accidents that occur in laundries. There were eight accidents in 1921 in connection with what are called hydro extractors. The Inspector's Report says that certain accidents could have been avoided if an automatic cover had been fixed. Why, was it not fixed? I take it the constant pressure of the inspectorate was not there to see it was fixed.
One looks under the head of Rubber Mixing Rolls. There were 56 accidents in three years, and the Report says they could have been avoided if the safeguards had been adequate. In connection with metal working power presses, there were 262 accidents which, according to the Report, were caused because no guards were fitted, or the guards were inefficient. Again, in connection with brick works there were large numbers of accidents because the fencing was inadequate, and also because the lighting in many instances was bad. May I, in this connection, ask my right hon. Friend what he proposes to do to carry out the Report of the Lighting Committee? The Lighting Committee say they are greatly impressed with the number of accidents caused by inadequate lighting, not only on ships in docks, but also all over our industrial sphere, and it is high time something was done. Under the heading of Bakers' Machinery, there were serious accidents in connection with dough mixers and dough brakes, the lack of efficient safeguards. There were 1,812 accidents in connection with cranes. I saw only the other day two instances of cranes crashing down in the London area. Why did they crash down? I think it was because the inspection was inadequate. Defects ought to be found out before there is this terrible threat to life and limb of working people. Then the Factory Inspector's Report alludes to hoists. He says the standard of safety in hoists is far too low, and that there are a great many accidents owing to there being many of an old and primitive type.
So much for accidents. I would now like to allude to the question of lead poisoning. There has been an alarming increase in connection with lead-poisoning cases in the manufacture of electric accumulators. In spite of most stringent Regulations, those cases of lead poisoning are on the increase. There were 35 in 1921, 31 in 1922, and from January to
May of this year there were no less than 24; so that we may take it that lead poisoning is on the increase in connection with electric accumulators. Again, in the pottery trade there is an increase in lead poisoning. Why is that? According to the Factory Inspector's Report, the Regulations are very largely disregarded. Owing to the inadequacy of the Factory Inspector's staff, a slack tone has crept into this industry—an industry where the strictest Regulations and the strictest attention to those Regulations is necessary. The Report actually gives instances of new works being erected with entire disregard of the Regulations.
I want also to ask my right hon. Friend what he intends to do to decrease the rate of deaths and ill-health in the house-painting trade. Before the War there was a deplorable amount of ill-health and a deplorable number of casualties owing to lead poisoning in the house-painting trade. During the War the amount of ill-health, of course, decreased enormously, but that was entirely due to the fact that lead was not procurable. Now it is procurable you will find, if you turn to the figures, that the amount of ill-health is steadily increasing. There is really no obstacle to dealing with this question effectively. The use of lead in this connection has been condemned by two Committees. It has also been condemned by a Congress at Geneva of the International Labour Movement, and I believe the house painters of this country are quite agreed that something should be done. The only persons, I believe, who stand out against legislation are those who are interested in the manufacture of lead, but I do suggest that a Government like this should not allow the opposition of a small section of people to stand in the way of a great improvement in the health of the people employed in the house-painting trade.
I desired to raise a question with regard to certain necessary reforms in our prison administration, but I understand that it would not be in order on this Vote. In conclusion, therefore, I wish to assure my right hon. Friend that I do not criticise his administration for the sake of criticising. I only rise to urge that, in the interest of humanity, and in the interest of economy, it is necessary to be more active and vigorous in defence of the
health and the welfare of the workers who are employed in our industrial system. For every pound that you spend in the salaries of inspectors, you will decrease by thousands the amount which the community has to spend in other ways. I do want to instil into my right hon. Friend and the Government generally a faith in what human sympathy and intelligent action can do to improve the conditions of the people of this country. I do not think this House or the Government ought to allow that it is in the necessary scheme of things that workers should have to suffer these adverse conditions, or that it is in the scheme of things that any category of workers, whether land workers or coal miners, should be paid less than a living wage. I do ask my right hon. Friend to adhere to the traditional policy of the Conservative party, that is, to safeguard the health and welfare of the people, and I, for one, although I hope I am a loyal Member of his party, will take every opportunity of protesting where I consider it, is necessary.
We are going to have a Debate on Monday on Socialism and private enterprise. I dare say we may have many eloquent speeches, but eloquent speeches in defence of the industrial and social system of the country and the institution of private enterprise will really be of very little effect. What will be of effect in defence of the institutions of this country is to make them consistent with the welfare and happiness and the aspirations of the workers, and if you abandon that policy your industrial and your capitalistic system are as good as dead.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): The Home Secretary, who has left the House for a few moments, has asked me during his absence to reply to the point about white lead. The Home Office has taken a very great interest in this question of the lead used in paint. A conference was held at Geneva in 1921, which came to certain agreements which may be shortly summarised under four heads. They first of all agreed that no lead in the future should be used for the internal painting of houses, with the exception of large industrial buildings, and they agreed that henceforth no woman or young person under 18 should be employed in using this poisonous
material. Both those will come into operation not later than 1st January, 1927. They also agreed that certain strict Regulations should be issued in regard to all paint, whether inside or outside, where lead was used, and they agreed that very full statistics should be kept of all lead poisoning cases. Then there was a Committee that investigated the whole question in 1922, and they agreed that legislation ought to be introduced as soon as possible to carry into effect what had been agreed upon at Geneva. This question really is not quite so easy as some people might think it is. A good many hon. Members think that the Convention of 1921 at Geneva ought to be ratified. As a matter of fact, the present Minister of Labour was present at Geneva, and he agreed to the terms of the agreement, but unfortunately since that date a certain misunderstanding has arisen about one of the principal agreements under the Convention—the employment of young people under 18 and the employment of women for industrial purposes. Apparently a good many of the members at Geneva were under the impression that that Article referred only to the painting of houses. Other members declared they believed it referred to the whole of industrial painting, whether in regard to houses or not. Until that point has been cleared up satisfactorily, it is rather difficult for this country to agree to the ratification of the Convention.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: How long will it take?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope it will not take any very long time. Secondly, since the Geneva Convention sat, a good deal of new information has come to light. I understand a new process involving the use of wet sandpaper has been invented by means of which the old dangers arising out of dry rubbing down can be prevented. Some people say if you use this wet sandpaper the dust is turned into a wet paste which clings to the hands and is almost as dangerous as the dry rubbing down process. I think it is absolutely essential that further experiments should be made with this new material until a definite decision is come to. At present the Home Office is engaged in receiving deputations on this question. I was deputed by the Home Secretary to receive these deputations and I have already had a deputation from the operatives concerned, and the operatives are in favour of the Conven-
tion being carried out. I have also had a deputation and a very long interview with the master painters, and they too are in favour of this Convention being carried out, but neither of them was able to give any opinion in regard to this new wet sandpaper process. I have yet to see the manufacturers of this white lead paint. It is rather difficult to come to any decision until one has met all these deputations and until the views of all interested parties have been placed before the Home Office, but the Home Office take a very deep interest in the question. They are deeply concerned with the safety of the people who are engaged in this trade and they certainly will not leave any stone unturned to get to the root of the matter and to do what is best for those concerned.

Mr. BRIANT: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been the recipient of many compliments during the time he has occupied him office. May I have the pleasant task of at once congratulating at least on one or two appointments he has made since he accepted office? It would be almost impossible to find two better selections than that of Miss Arbuthnot as Governor of the Aylesbury Borstal Institution for girls, and that of Mr. Alexander Patterson as a Commissioner of Prisons." They mark an enormous advance, shall I say, in the policy of the Home Office. I only hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow it up in the direction of appointing women governors and deputy-governors and women medical officers and women commissioners of police.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is now talking on the question of police? Why is he allowed to do so when we were forbidden?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member at the moment. If he was in the Committee he will remember the ruling I gave on the point a few moments ago.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Are we not discussing the salary of the Home Secretary and is not the widest discussion allowed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the Vote which contains the salary of the Home Secretary, and every subject which comes under the Home
Office can be discussed on it with the exception of those items on which there is a special Vote. For two of these items, Police and Prisons, which are the next two on the Paper, special Votes are provided, and it will be out of order on this Vote to discuss them.

Mr. BRIANT: I was only saying that as a preliminary to some criticism which I have to make, and I thought I might soften it. I entirely agree with what has been said in regard to factory inspection and better protection for the worker, but I want to call attention to the necessity for the protection of children who are helpless and have not the partial protection that the workman has. I am extremely anxious that the Home Secretary shall consider whether it is not time he should issue some form of circular to the magistrates' and other courts calling attention to the comparatively small penalties inflicted for what seem to me to be the most terrible, loathsome offences that are known. I am fully aware that the subject on which I want to speak is one which most people naturally avoid and evade, but it is no use evading the facts that exist. It is quite time the public and this House should face the facts, however loathsome. If they are horrible to hear, they are still more horrible to endure, and at the risk of offending the sensitiveness of any hon. Member, I want to point out what is occurring now as an additional reason why the Home Secretary should exert his great interest in endeavouring to have a more full comprehension of the terrible nature of the assaults which are continuing every day. In the case of assaults on children, a police court can only inflict a penalty of six months. I suggest that it is most desirable that all these cases should be sent to the Sessions, where a heavier penalty can be inflicted. But my chief grievance is that the courts of magistrates, who have power to inflict at least six months, will not do so, and they impose penalties which would be ridiculous if they were not tragic in their leniency for the most horrible offences. I want to give the House some definite cases. I am not a sentimentalist. For better or worse, my life has been spent in a certain way in which I happen to know some of the depths of wickedness, and I want to make certain definite statements.
In a case of indecent assault on a child of nine the penalty was four months' imprisonment. About the same time a man received five months' imprisonment for stealing a Pekingese dog. In another case of assault on a child of six there was a sentence of one month's imprisonment, in another on a child of seven, in which the man who was convicted gave as a reason that the child had given him any amount of encouragement, the total penalty was a fine of £3. It is a ridiculous punishment for a most serious offence. There are worse cases than these. There is a case of a child of seven in which the man was only bound over. In another case, in which the child is or was about to become a mother, the sentence was one week's imprisonment. Can you wonder that people are beginning to think that property is much more honoured and respected than persons? The House would be full of excited Members if there was an attack on the price of beer instead of attacks on innocent children not old enough to know evil from good, the victims of assault of the most atrocious and horrible character. I know these facts are not pleasant, but the House and the outside public should know the facts in order that public opinion may be roused, and that there may be an attempt, at least, to make the Courts do all that they possibly can, by pressure being brought upon the magistrates, to deal with this class of man more severely, and to give him the extreme penalty. There is a case which has been under my own observation of a child of 12 which is losing its sight through communicated venereal disease. We are very indignant about our small grievances. If our train service is bad we write letters to the "Times" about it, but few people ever raise their voices for the sake of these children, who are being practically murdered, body and soul. These outrages are going on more than people know. Some of the assaults are almost too horrible to relate. I have not exaggerated in anything I have said.
I do not wish the punishment to be vindictive, but if it be true that some of these men are abnormal, and probably it is true, then that is all the more reason why children should not be subject to their assaults, and all the more reason that whenever there is a chance of segregating these men, it should be taken advantage of by the magistrate or the
judges. Many of these men are probably the victims of some kind of delusion. It may be that they are mental defectives, but the danger is so great that when the law has an opportunity of protecting children from such persons the opportunity should be taken. This House consists almost entirely of men, but it should not allow this question to be, as it has been in the past, a woman's question. It is my sex that is responsible, and all the more shame to my sex that the money that is required to save these poor children's lives has to be largely appealed for to women.
The Home Secretary is as tenderhearted as I am, or as any other Member of the House, and knowing the facts, as I hope he knows them, I trust he will take action. If he does not know the facts, I hope he will study them. I speak with confidence when I say that he will use his influence to stir up the laggard magistrates, and to make them feel that a magistrate who passes a penalty of a £5 fine for this atrocious and loathsome offence, and then sends a man to prison for stealing a pound of apples, is guilty of a travesty of law and justice. It is time that our courts should be cleansed of men who have so little appreciation of what is just, right and wrong. I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider whether by circular or otherwise he could not make the magistrates feel their responsibility in this matter, so that it may not be a lasting shame, as it is, to our manhood, that children should be sent out into the world with ruined bodies, and one might almost say with shattered souls.

Mr. ROBERT JONES: I want to plead with the Home Secretary to deal with an injustice from which we suffer in Wales, and that is, that we are debarred by the law from taking the oath in the courts of justice in our own language. In many instances this has been allowed, but lately we have had legal opinion expressed that we have not the right to do it, and it has been made perfectly clear that we were only allowed to take the oath in our own language in our own country on sufferance. We are not a nation which has ever asked for favours, and we are not keen on accepting them, but we are very keen on our rights, and we are ready to fight for our rights when necessary. The Principality is the only part of the United Kingdom where the commercialism and industrialism of the age has
not been allowed to destroy our language, or to destroy our native culture. Every person who so desires should have the right to take the oath in a court of justice in his own language. I have reason to expect sympathy from the Home Secretary. He is not a Welshman, but his ancestors have always lived on the borders—tribal people who flourished in raiding both sides. His ancestors knew by experience what it was to oppose the just claims—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would the alteration suggested by the hon. Member need legislation? In that case, it would be out of order on this particular Vote.

Mr. JONES: I do not know whether it would be out of order or not. I am putting my plea to the Home Secretary, and I am not qualified to judge whether legislation is necessary. If you decide so, I must leave it there.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Home Secretary will say whether it would need legislation or not?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I am not sure whether it would need legislation, but I think it is possible to meet the wishes of hon. Gentleman opposite, representing Wales, without legislation, and I should be glad to do so, if I can. Perhaps it would not be out of order to refer to any improvement that could be effected which does not need legislation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it does not require legislation it will be in order.

Mr. HASTINGS: It would not require legislation.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It depends on what they want.

Mr. HASTINGS: Surely, a Welshman can take the oath in Wales in his own language. A Chinaman comes into this country and he can take the oath in Chinese, and, if necessary, it is interpreted. There is no need for legislation so that a Welshman can take the oath in Welsh.

Mr. JONES: There are over 2,000,000 people in Wales, and of that number 1,000,000 are Welsh speaking. One-fifth know no other language. It is on behalf of the Welsh population that I am putting forward my plea. I do not ask
for it as a sop to sentiment, but I ask for it as a right of the Welsh nation for a full recognition of its own language within the confines of its own country. Surely, such a case should appeal to any fair-minded person without the need of elaboration.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to add a word to the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) on the question of assaults on children. It is one of those things which makes one either see red or weep tears of blood. There is nothing in the world more tragic than these cases of child assault. If anything is liable to rouse what one might call class consciousness it is the fact that a man can get six months for stealing a Pekingese, and another man should only get six months for assaulting a child. I am not blaming any section of the community, but I am blaming the public conscience. I remember years ago the late Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth was made an ardent supporter of women's suffrage by a case of child assault. A man was brought up for a most horrible and ghastly assault on a little girl of seven, and another man was brought up for stealing. The man for stealing got two years' imprisonment, and the man for the child assault got six weeks, and the judge remarked "This is the kind of thing that might happen to any man." That made an ardent women's suffragist of the late Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth.
I know how uncomfortable it is for men and women to speak of these things, and I know what any mother would feel and what any father would feel. I believe the fathers feel it even more intensely than the mothers. They would feel that they would far rather their children were murdered outright than be ruined morally and physically by these ghastly assaults. The most of the girls who do wrong, certainly an enormous percentage of them, are girls who have been assaulted by men when they were children. That is a very serious thing. It has a psychological effect on the child's mind. That is proved by every social worker. Some people say that the man is not a criminal. If he is a criminal, he ought to be put into prison, and if he is abnormal he should be treated as abnormal. I implore the Home Secretary to do all that he
can to change the law which deals so lightly with the very worst sort of crime.
In dealing with girls who become prostitutes, one often hears the remark made that the woman led the man on. That may be true in some cases, but nobody can say that a little girl of seven, eight, nine or 10 could lead a man on. I hope the Home Secretary will give his sympathetic attention to this matter. If he went into these cases he would feel as every right-minded man and woman in this House and outside it must feel. As the hon. Member for North Lambeth has said, this is not a woman's question; it is a man's question, because it is the abnormal and degenerate men who are responsible. I ask the Home Secretary to look into this matter and act. If he would act quickly and strongly he would have the whole of the awakened public conscience behind him. A conscience that is asleep does not matter in any country.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I wish to support all that was said by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) in regard to the question of child assault. It is because we care greatly for these things that we dare to raise our voices on such an unpleasant subject. It is not a very easy thing to do. The House is sympathetic towards the subject we are discussing. I was particularly struck when the hon. Member for Bosworth (Major Paget) brought in a Bill a few days ago requesting that offences of this kind should be punished, though in a way that some of us perhaps did not agree with. At any rate, there was a feeling throughout the House that this class of offender should be very severely punished. The present administration for dealing with these cases has been suggested as inadequate. The procedure is that the offender is charged and he is convicted and sent to prison. Afterwards he is allowed to come out of prison. I want to go a step further. I do not want to say that the Judges or those who give the sentences must make the sentence longer, but I want to deal with these men in rather a different manner. When they leave the prison they are a very serious harm to the public, because generally there is a repetition of the offence.
These men are degenerate in every sense of the word, but if it cannot be proved that they were mentally deficient at the age of three they cannot be classified under the Mental Deficiency Act as being mentally deficient. I heard the other day of a man of 63 who for 40 years had lived a life of continually committing these offences, being repeatedly sent to prison, and released, and then committing the offence again. He had done that continuously for 40 years. That man ought to be looked upon as a mental degenerate and treated as such. There is so often lack of evidence in these cases, and the Court fails to convict through lack of evidence. I have known of a case in my own town two miles from where I live. A little girl was assaulted. After some pressure the mother was persuaded to let the case go into Court. The evidence was outstanding, and there was no question as to the man who had committed the offence. As the trial went on the little child was rather overcome. She was a child of only seven. She could not answer all the questions properly and finally broke down. The consequence was that that man was allowed to go scot free and is now committing similar offences and has had no punishment whatever.
We have to think of the harm that this is to the girls themselves. We feel as was suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth the shock to them, the memories which they retain all through their lives, their appearance in Court, their difficulty in answering questions on these delicate matters, and again, their impressions when they have to be taken to various homes for treatment. I have been looking into the question of these homes and find that there is not anything like the accommodation which is necessary for these girls. At present there are four in England, and we could well do with 50, unfortunately, to take charge of all the girls who are so afflicted, and who recover very slowly if they recover at all. Then there is always a stigma attaching to the child. There is the case of a child in my own town whose mother regrets that she ever sent the child to a home as the neighbours jeer at it now and that child is a marked child. There are many of these cases, in which there are no convictions owing to the difficulties in connection with the matter.
Some people think that all criminals are insane or mentally deficient or victims of heredity or alcohol or environment, but in this matter we want to deal with those who are, to my mind, mentally deficient. I would ask the Home Secretary if he could consider the appointment of a Committee to look into this question of child assault, both with regard to the children and with regard to the offenders. If he would appoint a Committee consisting of medical men and representative women and lawyers who have knowledge of crime that could inquire into this question with a view to setting up machinery, such as that which is working with such extraordinary success (although it is only in its early stages), in Birmingham and in Essex, which would bring about the examination from the psychological and scientific point of view of men who commit these offences. Such machinery with proper medical inspection would give us more scientific knowledge than we have at present and would lead to the treating of these men as moral degenerates rather than as ordinary persons.
One does want the appointment on the Benches of more women magistrates to deal with this question. If I mentioned the question of women police I should be called to order, but that will come on later. But one does feel that it is a very important point in reference to dealing with cases of assault on children, because they have capacity to question these children in a manner which makes them not afraid to state any evidence, and which does not give them a lasting impression of the horrible things through which they have gone. These two classes of women would follow up these cases with great advantage. We should have more women police and more women magistrates. I trust that the Home Secretary will exercise his power in this direction by setting up a Committee with the object of providing machinery such as that which is working so excellently in Birmingham and Essex.

Mr. HINDS: The last two speakers have referred to the question of child assault, and I would like that something should be done to deal with this matter. From my experience, I believe that these cases are dealt with quite justly and sympathetically by all the benches with which I have come in contact. I desire, however, to confirm what was said in
reference to taking the oath in Court in the Welsh language. I have never seen myself that there has been any trouble at any time in getting the evidence of any man or woman interpreted or having an interpreter there to do this work. I think that chairmen of Quarter Sessions and judges are always quite ready when a witness wants to give evidence in his own language to see that he is enabled to do so. I have nothing to say against the two magistrates who have been referred to, but we could do far better with men who understand the language. We have some other grievances against the Home Office at the present time. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. We are not an alien country. We are the oldest part of this great Empire. Our language is the oldest almost in the world, and it ought to be respected to that extent.
There is another grievance. I have been asking question with regard to the appointment of an ex-Member of this House, for whom we all have a great respect, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen. He was an honoured Member of this House, and I wish that he was here at present, but the Welsh people do object to the Home Office putting him into the position of Chairman of the Welsh Church Commission. He was a valiant fighter, as some of us remember, on the Floor of the House for the Church, and from his own point of view he was justified. I remember him complaining very bitterly of £1,500 being given to the Chairman of the Commission. When the Commission was set up, the Church felt that there should be one churchman among the three who were appointed, and that one was appointed, and the other two were to be quite independent. To-day you have three churchmen, and when there is a vacancy instead of appointing someone else, another churchman is appointed. I do not say that Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen has not got all the qualifications, but there is among the Welsh people a feeling that, after fighting in the way in which he has been fighting in this matter of the Welsh Church, and having had so much to do with the Welsh Church Act, he cannot be as independent as another person, for instance, of the type of Sir William Plender. We do feel that there is something of the job about this appointment,
and we object to it. The Home Office should have appointed a man whose hands were clean in the matter, and not one who has taken the part which Sir Arthur Boscawen took in the past on this question of the Welsh Church. The property with which he is dealing belongs to the Welsh County Councils and the University of Wales. The Commissioners wield great power, and we ought to have a man who, we feel, would be independent of all sections, so that we might feel confident that justice would be done to the Welsh people and to the Welsh Church as well.
I desire also to refer to the question of the chaplaincy in one of the Welsh prisons about which I asked a question the other day. We say, that as there are no Nonconformists now in Wales, this position ought to be open to all ministers, including Nonconformists, as they were before, Baptist, Wesleyans, and so on. The present Home Secretary does not concede that. I think that his strong point is, that the prison population belongs to the Church of England, and I consider that that is a great compliment to the Nonconformists, but we are fighting for fair play, and I think that the Home Secretary is willing to give fair play, and I would ask him to give full consideration to these points, upon which we, as Welsh people, feel that there is some injustice. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman what is going to be done with regard to the empty prisons. We have got them up and down the country. We have got one in my own town, Carmarthen, near the railway station. We would like that some means should be found of turning them to some useful purpose for the good of the people. They might be adapted for use by the Boy Scouts, or for some other useful purpose. They are no use at present. If there is any use to which they can be put, why does not the right hon. Gentleman sanction their use in some way or other. We Welsh Members do not trouble the House very often, but we have these pin pricks of grievances, as to which we feel that we have not got the justice to which we are entitled.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I desire to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman a matter which was referred to earlier in the Debate. That is the question of the inspection of factories.
There seems to be general agreement as to the urgent need for the Home Secretary to strengthen his staff which has to do with the inspection of factories. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. Turner) have dealt specially with the point. I wish to urge specially the importance of it by bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a case which seems to be indicative of the situation in many parts of the country. This is the case which was taken up by the Public Prosecutor acting, I suppose, on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman. The defendants were John Walker and Emma Biggins, proprietors of premises known as the Select Works, 190, Rockingham Street, Sheffield. I will not go into all the details, but this is the kind of thing. They had premises 130 feet by 60 feet let to 39 tenants for a very substantial rent, and those tenants employed on the premises between 120 and 136 persons, mostly women or female young persons. The Inspector reported that the place was in a dangerous condition, with four or five different floors, absolutely rotton, in spite of the fact that there was very heavy machinery there, with the shafting and pulleys going up to the top floor.
6.0 P.M.
In one case the wall of the premises was out of plumb to the extent of 6 inches. When one realises that in premises like those you have practically all women labour employed and also have the use of xylonite, a very inflammable and dangerous material, one can appreciate the great need for increased inspection. The point I want particularly to draw attention to is this: During the taking of the evidence the magistrate put the question, "Has the defendant been in Court before in respect of this property?" The reply was, "Not in respect of this particular property, but he has been in this Court several times in respect of other premises." That seemed to show that it is quite a common state of affairs. In dealing with the evidence, the presiding magistrate made the remark, "There are a great many places of this kind requiring attention." From his evidence the inspector in the case seemed to be a very highly efficient officer. He said that he had done a great deal in reporting to the
Home Office the very serious state of affairs, and the imminent danger to human life that existed in regard to these premises, but he had been unable to get anything done. Those were the facts. What happened? The people were given a month to start some work of repair in order to put the premises right, whereas counsel appearing on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions said in his opening statement that the only way to cure the place was to blow it up.
That is the kind of thing which, apparently, is to be allowed to go on in the industrial conditions of hundreds and thousands of the workers of the country. I am aware that there are other employers who are quite the reverse—employers who make every effort to see that their work-people are housed and employed under conditions that do not cause imminent danger to life and limb but are as conducive as possible to health. I would, however, urge upon the Home Secretary that when we are having cases of this sort brought to our notice, with such a condition of affairs existing in many cases, the Home Office is not a Department in which there should be any great cry for economy. It is of enormous importance to the industrial workers, and especially to the women and children workers, that there should be a far larger staff of the technical kind. It is impossible, as has been said, for the present staff to visit once a year all the factories concerned. I hope that in his reply the Home Secretary may be able to indicate that the Government is prepared to grant such a sum as will ensure a larger inspectorate, so as to avoid these dangers.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. R. Jones) on the admirable way in which, in a maiden speech, he urged the need of having the oath administered in Welsh, if desired, in the law courts not only of North Wales, but of South Wales. Very often we are told that in South Wales we are more Anglicised and more cosmopolitan than in North Wales. Representations have been made to the Home Secretary that it is desirable that he should meet the very moderate and reasonable request which has been made. We have found from time to time a great deal of difficulty raised as to administering the oath in the Welsh language. There is another
Matter—the appointment of Stipendiary Magistrates for Wales—to a certain stage I endorse the remarks made with respect to the appointment of Welsh-speaking stipendiaries in Cardiff and Swansea. I know that I shall be told that both these appointments have received the approval of the Corporations affected. There were gentlemen available who had a greater knowledge of the language than those who were appointed. I shall not say anything with respect to the appointment to the Swansea district. The gentleman appointed there has a thorough knowledge and some slight ability to deal with the Welsh language. But in the other case I do not think that that can be said.

Mr. GOULD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there has not been a single instance in 25 years where it has been necessary to administer the oath in Welsh with the aid of the interpreter?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: In the Cardiff Courts there have been Welsh men who have not been able to follow the language, and to the discredit of Cardiff nobody has been provided, though applications have been made. On one occasion I was used as an interpreter because there was no one else able to carry out the duties officially. Even in Cardiff, cosmopolitan as it is, there is a very large number of Welshmen who require the services of an interpreter and who ask that the oath shall be administered in the Welsh language. Cardiff provides for all aliens, but not for the Welsh. That is the irregular and unreasonable part of it. It provides for the Arabs and Hindus and Chinese, but does not provide for the Welsh, and that is in a city which claims to be the capital of Wales.

Mr. GOULD: It is.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I will agree, but Cardiff does not provide officially for the administering of the oath in Welsh. We ask that that omission shall now be rectified. Fortunately, in the industrial district we have had a County Court judge appointed recently who is a thorough Welshman, and on several occasions he has conducted the whole of the business in Court in the Welsh language. With regard to the administering of the oath, there are, I
believe, Welshmen on the magistrate's list even in Cardiff who, if they were asked, could do the necessary work. When a request is made for the oath in Welsh the reply invariably made by the sitting magistrates is that they have not the official form of the Welsh oath to be administered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us it.
It is very simple and easy, and is as follows:
Yr ydwyf yn tynghedu fad y dystiolaeth a rhoddaf i gynwys y 'Gwir,' yr holl 'Wir,' a dim ond y 'Gwir,' fel yr atebaf i Dduw.
[Cheers.] That is the Language of Eden.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will supply a certified translation to the Official Reporter.

Captain W. BENN: Has it not been laid down by the Chair more than once that the Debates in this House must be conducted in the English language?

The CHAIRMAN: That is so, but occasionally even the Chairman has been, I will not say guilty of, but has been known to use, quotations in another and perhaps a classical language, and, therefore, I do not think that the hon. Member's quotation is out of order. I was rather thinking of the difficulties of the Official Reporter.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The translation is simple enough. It is this:
The evidence I shall give to this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
All the difficulty has been caused hitherto because it has been said that the form of the Welsh oath has not been officially approved and registered. There should, however, be no difficulty in meeting a very reasonable and moderate request.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote seemed rather disappointed that I had not made a long statement about the work of the Home Office at the beginning of the afternoon. I think it is far more useful, in a Debate on Estimates of this kind, to hear first the views of Members of the House, so that one can know the subjects which interest them, than to take up a great deal of time with matters that the Minister in charge thinks are a good advertisement for his term of office. I decided, therefore, that as much time as possible should be given this afternoon
to hearing what was said, and to ascertaining what useful suggestions could be made for the better working of the office over which I have the honour to preside. Perhaps I might begin with the great national question of the Welsh Oath and the other national points which have been raised by hon. Members from Wales. I think there is some misapprehension in the criticism of the appointment of Sir Arthur Boscawen to be Chairman of the Welsh Church Commission. It was said in the course of the Debates on the Welsh Church Act that it was stipulated that only one of these members must be a Churchman. I remember those Debates very well indeed, and I was looking them up the other day, and I think if is quite clear that it was in contemplation by many Members of the House, if not of a majority, and, I think, also of Mr. McKenna, who was in charge of the Bill, that all three would be Churchmen. Mr. McKenna said he thought it would be in their interest to have some Churchman to accept office until the Bill was absolutely through—

Mr. HINDS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair, but I have read those Debates right through, and I have arrived at a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot find that there was any such understanding as he mentions. I think the assumption was that there should be one Churchman, but that all three should be independent, and I contend this appointment is a breach of the spirit of those Debates.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is where the hon. Member and I differ. I listened to those Debates and took some part in them, but apparently he and I have formed different ideas as to what was said, and it may be that we have taken the words of different speakers which happened to meet our own wishes. At any rate, the Act says that one must be a Churchman, but it does not say that the others may not be Churchmen, and therefore there is nothing at all wrong in appointing a man who belongs to the Church of England and who succeeds an other gentleman who was, I think, also a member of the Church of England. As to Sir Arthur Boscawen's part in the Debates being prejudicial to his work in that position, I feel quite certain he has much too great a sense of fairness to
allow any consideration or party prejudice to bias his judgment in the work he will have to do. He has the advantage of knowing a great deal about the subject, and he should also be welcomed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, being, I believe, himself Welsh.
Reference was made to the question of the use of vacant prisons in Carnarvon and elsewhere, and it is very satisfactory that such a question should arise at all. I have been asked if we cannot put them to some other use, and we should like to do so if we felt certain they would not be again required for their original purpose. They are not buildings which are very easily adapted to other purposes, but we are bearing in mind what has been suggested as to making what use of them we can if it is found that they are not likely to be required again as prisons. With regard to the Welsh Oath, I have great sympathy with what has been said. I cannot, however, quite understand what the grievance is. I have been making inquiries from various clerks and justices, and there does not seem to be a general feeling of grievance on the subject, but I feel myself it is natural that a person who speaks Welsh and no other language should wish to take the oath in Welsh. The only difficulty seems to be the case of a man who speaks Welsh, but is not able to read or write. He should be made to understand somehow or other what the oath means, and I think if one or two of the hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the matter would meet me at the Home Office we could easily get over this difficulty, which is not a very great one. Regarding the question of chaplains in Welsh prisons, I think I answered a question on that subject. I believe there is a statutory obligation in that matter, and I would refer hon. Members to my answer on the point. As far as I recollect, arrangements have always been made for the services of Welsh chaplains where they are required, but I will certainly look into the matter again, if there is any grievance in any particular place.

Mr. HINDS: All we want is that the Irish case should be followed, and that there should be no preferential treatment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I say, I will look it up again. I believe there is some statutory obligation, but I think there should be an opportunity for every denomination to have its own chaplain. Several hon. Members have referred to
the very sad subject of assaults on children. Two of the lady Members of this House and the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Briant) have referred to this subject, and I feel, personally, there is a great deal in what they say. Nobody in the House fails to realise the horrible nature of crimes of this kind, but I think the hon. Member for Lambeth made a mistake as to the amount of punishment which can be imposed for such offences. I think he said it could not be more than six months' imprisonment, but it can be anything up to two years with hard labour, and, if it amounts to a felony, it can also be punished by penal servitude. There is always the difficulty that, unless one has been present at the trial of a case of this kind, one is liable to be misled as to the real extent, of the crime by newspaper reports, which are naturally very much abbreviated.
I rather hesitate in these matters to decline to take the opinion of the local justices as to what the sentence should be. They know the conditions much better than we do, and I think, as a rule, they impose reasonable sentences. The figures in regard to the number of these assaults do not show that the want of more severe punishment has led to any increase. On the contrary, there is a decrease. It may be, as the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) said, that this is due to the fact that people are reluctant to come forward in cases of this sort. Possibly that is the reason why there are not more convictions, but, at any rate, there is no evidence that this horrible crime is on the increase. It is a matter which we must watch very carefully, and the Home Office are watching it and watching the sentences which are being given. The suggestions made by the hon. Member for Louth as to the treatment of mentally-defective persons, in this connection, deserve consideration. I think the fact that the subject has been debated and that every Member who has spoken has emphasised the fact that this crime should be severely punished will be of itself an indication that public opinion is in favour of severe punishment. I shall certainly continue to watch the matter, and where it is possible, either by circular or otherwise, call further attention to it.
My noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) raised a question about the Report of the Lighting Committee. That is a matter which will require legislation if it is to be dealt with, and we are considering it. As regards lead poisoning, that point will be answered by the Under-Secretary. I come to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). Their criticisms, in the main, amounted to this, that there was inefficient factory inspection and that we wanted an increase in the inspectorate. If the need for economy were not what it is, I should welcome the opportunity of getting money to appoint more inspectors, but, in these days, economy is being pressed upon every Department, and it would be extremely difficult to increase the number at the present time. A great many of the grievances suggested can be met by members of the Labour party, and of the unions which they represent, bringing cases to the notice of the inspectors, and further assisting—as I know they already do to a large extent—in calling the attention of the inspectors to any breaches of the regulations or any dangers existing in particular places. I have not had a sufficient amount of time to go into this question as I would like to go into it. If only the House would adjourn and remain adjourned for a good many months, one would be able to investigate many of these questions which it is impossible to investigate except on the spot and when the House is not sitting. These matters are of extreme interest. When I was at the Mines Department I had rather more time to go into the question of safety than I have had since, but I hope I shall be able to look into the suggestions made this afternoon. The real move in advance that can be made is by everybody joining in the "Safety first" campaigns which are being promoted all over the country by our inspectors, and in many cases well supported by the leaders of labour in the various districts. In the mines the leader, Mr. Herbert Smith, and the Secretary of the Federation, Mr. Hodges, have done a great deal to help in pushing forward in various places the "Safety first" movement, and I hope that any efforts that are made by the Home Office in that direction will receive the support of the employers and also of those who represent the trade unions concerned.

Mr. TURNER: The mines have compulsory inspection by the workpeople. Could the Home Office institute a similar proceeding for factories, so that there shall be a monthly inspection?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to consider that question, which deserves consideration, and I will certainly bear it in mind.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my right hon. Friend think that the "Safety first" committees have the power to enforce safeguards and improvements in industries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What they do is to call attention to the dangers to the workers themselves, and to bring up the children who are going to work with a sense of the dangers of the occupation that they are going to take up. I am certain that the movement has had a great effect where it has been tried, and I believe there are great possibilities in the future, and that more good will come from efforts of that kind than from very large increases in the number of the inspectors, although I quite admit that if money were to be found I should be very glad to spend some of it on a few more inspectors. The hours of labour dealt with by the Washington Conference were referred to, but that is a question for the Ministry of Labour and does not come under my jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Nelson referred to the two-shift system and to some breach of it which he said had been committed by Messrs. Lever Brothers. I made inquiry as soon as I could into that matter, and I find that what happened was that Messrs. Lever gave notice that they wished to adopt the two-shift system. The Home Office were not quite satisfied that the ballot was properly taken, and they sent down to have another ballot taken. The second ballot showed a majority in favour, but in the meantime, I believe, Messrs. Lever had actually adopted the system, between the first and second ballots. It was not thought likely that a prosecution would be successful in that case, as it would probably be regarded merely as a technical offence, and that the second ballot had justified their action.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Was it a technical offence to put into operation, arrangements for a two-shift system 24
days before the receipt or the order from the Home Office?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If so, it was very irregular.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman not mean to take steps?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the second ballot showed that everybody on both sides was in favour of it, it seems rather useless.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think I pointed out at the time, that that second ballot was taken under circumstances which made it quite unfair and that the girls were expected to put their disc number on the ballot paper, which meant that they could be identified.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no proof of that, but I will look into that point. In regard to the two-shift system generally, there seems to be a very great difference of opinion about it. The operatives in some places are in favour of it, and in others are against it, but it cannot be put into operation properly unless both sides ask for it. Further, it is limited to the hours between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and to persons over the age of 16. It is also limited to 1925, and it cannot be carried on after that without further legislation. I think we want really to have more experience as to how it works before we blame it, in face of the fact that there is a great deal of opinion amongst the operatives in favour of it in certain cases.

Mr. GREENWOOD: No.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have the evidence of that. It depends on where the place is, but in some cases, under certain circumstances, they are clearly in favour of it, and evidence has been given to that effect. One more criticism which the hon. Member levelled at me was the lateness of the date of the appearance of the Factory Inspector's Report. I am very sorry it should be so late, but on looking back over the past years I find that last year it came out on 7th July, the only time since the War when it was so early. It came out on 22nd July in 1921, on 4th October in 1920, and on 30th September in 1919. In the last year before the War it came out on 4th July, and in 1912 on 31st July. I quite agree that it would be far better if we could have it produced earlier, and
I will look into that question. It is a very long Report, and it has to deal with the financial year, but if it be possible to accelerate that Report, I shall be very glad to do it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to say a word or two in reference to the case that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hinds), with regard to the administration of the Welsh Church Act. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the difficulties which we experienced in trying to effect a settlement of that question immediately after the War. It was an old controversy, as he knows. It had torn religious Wales for about 50 or 60 years, and the controversy was a very bitter one. Fortunately, the new spirit created by the War enabled us to effect a settlement which was acceptable to both parties. The settlement that was put through this House had the support of the leaders of Welsh nonconformity. There were two or three notable exceptions, but it had the support of the whole of the Welsh Bishops, and everything depended upon the spirit in which it was carried out. It succeeded in settling a great national controversy in a way which left no sting behind it. I have heard people criticise it on the ground that its terms were much too favourable to the Church, but the bulk of the Welsh non-conformists never gave any countenance to that criticism. They were so pleased that the old quarrel between religious people and spiritual agencies in Wales should have been settled without leaving any trace of bitterness behind.
But I very much regret that two or three things have been done recently, stirring up the embers of the old controversy, and it was very unnecessary, I think. I have not a word, personally, to say against Sir Arthur Griffiths-Boscawen, but he had been a very violent partisan. He used to take a very leading part in the controversy, and it is pre-eminently desirable that the Chairman of this body should have been—I am not complaining of his being a Conservative or a Churchman; that is not my complaint—someone who had been removed from the controversy. We chose Sir Henry Primrose, who, I believe, was a Churchman, but he had never taken any part in any of these controversies, and I think his administration gave very great satisfaction. At
any rate, it did not provoke controversial issues. I should have thought it would have been possible to have chosen a Conservative and a Churchman who had not been mixed up in what I call the savageries of the fight. Sir Arthur Boscawen had been in the fight. If we had been in office and had chosen a man of that type as Chairman, I have no doubt about the complaints which would have been made, and rightly so, by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I think it is a very great pity that that should have been done, when the controversy had been settled in such an admirable spirit and had worked so well that all traces were vanishing, and there was a real co-operation, which I have never seen in my time, between Church and Dissent in Wales in matters of much greater importance to the national life than any issue raised by the Welsh Church Act.
Then, again, take what has been done about the chaplains. The chaplains in Ireland, under the working of the disestablishment there, were chosen without reference to creed to minister to criminals of that particular creed. That is right. There was a majority in an Irish prison of Catholics, and there was a Catholic chaplain, and the same with regard to the other forms of religion, Episcopalians, Methodists, and the rest, but here the Government have chosen to assume that there is no disestablishment in the prisons. You have disestablishment everywhere else, but the Church is still the established Church in the prisons of Wales. What is the answer of the Home Secretary? His answer is that the majority of the criminal classes in Wales are members of the Church of England. That is his answer. It is a very offensive answer, which I would not have dared to give, but supposing that is the case, that simply means that in those cases the criminals who were members of the Church of England would have a Church of England chaplain. That is not what we are objecting to. What we are objecting to is that it seems to be assumed that the prison chaplain should be a member of the Church of England because it is the Establishment—ipso facto as an hon. Friend points out—but it is no longer ipso facto in Wales, and the Act ought to be carried out in the spirit of the compromise arrived at. It was a compromise to which we all agreed.
I remember an effort being made to stir up objections to that compromise by hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, but the Welsh bishops absolutely refused to have anything to do with it. They wanted a settlement. It was a settlement that all the Welsh Churchmen agreed to, and those who from outside tried to persuade them not to agree completely failed. All the bishops came into it. Is it not better that that thing having been settled, all the poison having been eliminated out of the system, we should not be re-inoculated with this virus by the Home Secretary? I am certain he would be very anxious to see us in Wales living in peace and amity, because we are rather near to him, and any disturbances might affect him. I appeal to him to be true to the kindly spirit he generally manifests, and to see that the spirit of the bargain is not broken. It is really the breaking of that bargain. I should not like to use a certain phrase which would seem to suggest that my right hon. Friend had done something dishonourable, because I am sure he is quite incapable of doing anything of the sort. But he seems to have got some lawyer, who told him him that there is some old Act of Parliament which meets his case. Let me give him a piece of advice. I advise him not always to be led by the lawyers when it is a matter of dealing with broad issues of this kind. Lawyers are all right in their proper place. But I hope he will keep them there, and not let them get mixed up in a religious issue of this kind, to stir up that controversy, which I thought was dead and buried.
I am sorry to say I had some very painful letters from people who supported this compromise against their own fraternity and who have been charged with having surrendered their great principles because they agreed with the Church of England in the settlement. These are the people who are writing to me. They took risks in order to effect the arrangements when the Welsh Church Act was on the Statute Book, when it was an Act of Parliament. The compromise was a modification of the Act of Parliament. My right hon. Friend was a party to that arrangement. I do appeal to him to carry it out in the spirit as well as in the letter. He has got a personal responsibility in the matter, and I ask him to do exactly what has been done in
Ireland, and to appoint chaplains of their own persuasion to those to whom they minister, to treat them all on the basis of nonconformity. That is the essence of the arrangement which was arrived at, and unless that be carried out it really is a breach of faith, and will be a cause of conflict between the religious agencies of Wales.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: First of all I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that Sir Arthur Griffiths-Boscawen was one of these persons wile supported the compromise settlement, and with others who supported the compromise, was dealt with very harshly at the hands of some of his own friends. Therefore, so far as the settlement is concerned, it is only fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman was strongly supported by many not of his views. In regard to the question of the prison chaplains, I do not know the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as being offensive, but I gave a tentative answer to the effect that there were some members of the Church of England in prison in Wales. It was not a question as to the chaplains. What I was asked about chaplains was whether or not some legislation would have to be introduced repealing some old Act. As it is the principal chaplain has to be a member of the Church of England. The question is not one of a breach of faith. It is a question that if what is asked is to be done we must repeal some old Act. I am quite willing to consider doing that. I do, however, object to being represented as having given an offensive answer. I gave one answer purely statistical, and the other was a bare statement of the law. I never said what my own view of the matter was. I am quite ready, however, to consider whether it is necessary to repeal the Act in force.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I want to ask the Home Secretary a short question about what action he is taking in regard to the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act? He has it in his power to annul these Regulations by Order in Council. When the Bill was brought forward to indemnify the English officers for the action they had taken, it was clearly understood that steps would be taken to revise these ridiculous powers possessed by the right hon. Gentleman. The House is aware of
the large batch of totally unsuitable powers which were hastily collected and given to Sir Hamar Greenwood when the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act was passed. My own view is, that the right hon Gentleman should give up altogether the possession of these extralegal powers. Many of them, as everybody in the House will agree, should immediately be given up. They are absurd. The Home Secretary himself has admitted it. He has, for example, powers under this Act to regulate the growing of crops, or the keeping of pigs, or the collection of certain information, the possession of silver coin in excess of a certain amount, and so on. He has, however, other powers which are more dangerous, and which give the Home Secretary power to prohibit meetings, to search premises, and make arrests. They ought to go! The state of affairs in which they might have been proper has passed, and the Home Secretary ought to give up these extra-legal powers. In any case, when the Indemnity Bill was passed, it was clearly understood that there was to be a revision.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Can this be done without legislation?

Captain BENN: Oh, yes!

The CHAIRMAN: I gather that under these Regulations the Home Secretary has power to continue or abolish the Regulations he has issued. By legislation he has been given control.

Captain BENN: That is just the point. This comparatively short Act endows the Home Secretary with powers to make these Regulations and, of course, with power to revoke them. He ought not to have any such power. Certainly he ought not to get it by so absurd a method, and in connection with the things which are embodied in the Regulations to-day, I am well aware that the illness of the Lord Chancellor has caused some delay in this matter, but that surely is a difficulty which could be overcome? We cannot wait indefinitely. The promised Committee should be set up to consider the matter. The House should be asked whether or not it will continue to permit the Home Secretary to possess these or any of these powers. The Secretary for Scotland, in another place, indicated in
a speech his own judgment that some special power of this kind should be permanently retained. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has that idea, but many of us here strongly disagree with it. In any case, I should like to know that steps are going to be taken, a Committee set up to report, and that the House will be asked to give a definite decision as to whether the time has not arrived when we should revert to the old state of affairs, which was that law and order was kept to the satisfaction of everyone without giving the Home Secretary powers altogether above the statutory requirements.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would not be in order to say much as to my powers under the Act, and as to which should or should not be retained. Perhaps I had better for the moment keep outside controversy in replying to the question—which was justified—as to what steps have been taken to fulfil the undertaking given by the Prime Minister when the Indemnity Bill was going through the House. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman said then that he proposed to set up, with the assistance of the Lord Chancellor, a small committee of three, one member of which would be an eminent legal authority, to go into the question, not only as to whether the Regulations should be abolished, but whether any of the emergency powers under the Act should be retained, and, if so, what? The position of any Home Secretary who succeeds me will be intolerable if it is not made exactly clear what powers he possesses on matters which have been left in great doubt by the recent judgment. The position is most absurd, I agree. The thing should be cleared up, and it should be settled what powers, emergency powers, the Home Secretary should have to deal with any troubles that may arise in the country.
What has happened is that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, there has been considerable delay owing to the illness of the Lord Chancellor. I have, however, been able to communicate with him since he has been well enough to receive letters, and so far two out of the three members have accepted the appointment. I cannot announce the names until the third member is secured. Another
gentleman has been asked, but has not seen his way to serve. We are now trying to find a third suitable member for the Committee, and I shall announce the names at the earliest possible moment.

Captain W. BENN: Will the Report be published and the decision of the House sought before we adjourn?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee have not yet sat. There are only two appointed; I am trying to get the third.

Mr. PETO: In intervening in this Debate I must apologise to the Committee for raising a question outside those which have been proceeding up till now. It is an English question, although it has a bearing upon Wales. I am not going to make a complaint against the Home Secretary, but I shall be very glad if I can have his attention while I point out what wide powers he has under the Shops (Early Closing) Act, and which seems to inflict a hardship upon people, particularly those in seaside resorts, who are having a very short summer season. It is desirable that they should reap any benefit they can in the summer. They are not busy for 12 months. Their trade is practically done in the summer months, and has got to be done then.
7.0 P.M.
The particular grievance to which I want to call the attention of the Home Secretary has been brought to my attention by the dairymen of Ilfracombe. The customers of these men are the Welsh miners. Visitors from Wales go to Ilfracombe by the Campbell steamers, which carry hundreds of people every day. In spite of the gloomy picture drawn the other day of the miners' condition, it is true that the miners of Wales have still got some money to have a little holiday. One of the things they always take back with them to Wales is Devonshire cream. The Campbell steamers return about 9.30, 10 or 10.30, and very often the Welsh miner on his little annual holiday, being somewhat of a casual fellow, forgets one of the most important things he came to Devonshire for, namely Devonshire cream, and it is only when he is on his way to the steamer, or gets on board, that he discovers he has not got his cream. The shops are then closed, and while there is Devonshire cream in the shops he cannot get at it owing to the Early Closing Act. It is not only that, but milk is not allowed to be sold under the Act after eight o'clock. If
visitors go into a lodging house or hotel and give orders they cannot be possibly carried out, because it is illegal to supply lodging-house or hotel keepers with the necessary milk to make coffee or other drink although it may be wasting in the dairy shops next door. I have looked into the matter to see how it stands, and I find that under the original Shops Act, 1912, the provisions of which are confirmed by the Act of 1920, the Clause runs:
5.—(1) An Order (in this Act referred to as 'a closing Order') made by a local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State in manner provided by this Act may fix the hours on the several days of the week at which, either throughout the area of the local authority or in any specified part thereof, all shops or shops of any specified class are to be closed for serving customers.
Then it goes on to say:
(2) The hour fixed by a closing Order (in this Act referred to as 'the closing hour') shall not be earlier than seven o'clock in the evening on any day of the week.
(3) The Order may—

(a) define the shops and trades to which the Order applies; and
(b) authorise sales after the closing hour in cases of emergency and in such other circumstances as may be specified or indicated in the Order."

What I want to put to the Home Secretary is that this short summer trade at seaside resorts is one of these cases referred to where he reasonably might use the power conferred on him by these Acts to make an exception, and let dairymen, at any rate, keep their places of business open, particularly on Saturday evenings, a little later than is allowed by the hard and last rules laid down in the 1920 Act. That Act provides that
Every shop shall be closed for the serving of customers not later than eight o'clock in the evening.
There are, however, exceptions which are allowed under the Order of the Home Secretary. I find that
newly cooked provisions to be consumed off the premises; any fresh fish or tripe or soft fruit which would become unfit or less suitable for food if kept till the following day
are expressly exempted. Soft fruit is expressly exempted, but, the cream to eat with the soft fruit is not exempted. Surely, that is a little unreasonable, and I am not at all sure that a more liberal
interpretation of the words of the Act would not include that particular article.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of having Devonshire cream marked, as well as the soft fruit?

Mr. PETO: That remark of the hon. and gallant Member is worthy of the Committee Room upstairs. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the Committee. I am particularly interested in this question of Devonshire cream, which is a leading article of the dairymen's trade in these seaside resorts. I am not at all sure that it is not a "newly-cooked food intended to be consumed off the premises." It is undoubtedly cooked, and if the Home Secretary would take a friendly view of a struggling trade, which is trying to do a little business, and would help people who have money to spend and are anxious to spend it—there is not too much employment or trade in the country—and would apply to the Attorney-General, I feel confident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would probably give him a legal opinion to the effect that real Devonshire cream might be held to be "newly—cooked food." At any rate, I ask him to give attention to the memorial that has recently been made to him, signed by every one in the dairies in this district, asking for more liberal opportunities for trading than are given under the rigid interpretation of the Shops Act. If he does so, he will be doing something which will be popular, not only in Devonshire, but also with our very friendly visitors who come to us from Wales, for whom we want to cater.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I should like to say two or three words on a question which also comes under the purview of the Home Office, namely, their administration of the Aliens Act. I am speaking for people who cannot speak for themselves, because they have no representation in this House, and who, for many reasons, deserve, in my opinion; rather more consideration than they received at the hands of the Home Office I am not going to review the administration of the Aliens Act in general, and I am not unmindful of the Debate we had
a few months ago in this House. I listened then with very great interest to the reply given by the Home Secretary to the many criticisms, more particularly from these benches, against the very severe administration of the Act in respect to aliens. By the Regulations in respect to aliens, made under the Acts of 1914 and 1919, the Home Office has acquired a very important position in the foreign relations of this country. It has become, in this particular respect, a kind of off-shoot of the Foreign Office, and its action in dealing with aliens who are in this country, or who wish to come to it, has a very distinct effect upon the foreign relations of this country and its reputation internationally. From that point of view, I think the matter is important.
I am not going to deal with the general questions which were raised in that Debate, but with some matters which may appear smaller on the surface, and which were not touched upon then. Granted that a certain number of aliens are allowed to come to this country, and to remain in it, why should not they be treated with decency and courtesy when they are here? As a matter of fact, aliens who are here have to be subjected to various conditions. They have to come up at frequent intervals to the Home Office to apply for an extension of their permit and for purposes of that kind. What happens when they go there? They go to a little, dirty, dark, musty room, with the plaster falling off the wall; a dilapidated room, with broken-down chairs. They are called upon to wait, hour after hour, and frequently to come back again to be examined again. I say "examined," because they are put through—I know one or two cases at any rate, and I presume it occurs in other cases—a cross-examination. They are treated as if they were extremely suspicious characters. They have to make out a case under very severe cross-examination, and to wait a very long time before it comes to an end.
I am not blaming the officials there. From what I have heard, the officials are very much overworked, and it is not their fault if the aliens concerned have to wait a very long time. Some hon. Members may consider that a matter of small importance, but I think it is to be very much regretted if people who, after all, have been permitted to come to this country,
should have to go through a process which makes them leave the walls of the Home Office muttering their dissatisfaction at the way in which they have been treated by this country, which has enjoyed a high reputation in these matters in the past. I think that high reputation is quite worth preserving. I can say this, without putting my claim too highly, that where you can afford to be courteous without very much trouble and without very much expense, what advantage is there in being discourteous and unpleasant. My second point is in regard to the exclusion of aliens from this country on the ground that they hold certain political opinions. I have been very desirous to see certain people whom I know, whose opinions are communist. I have been very desirous that those people should be allowed, in accordance with their desire, to visit this country for a few weeks, to see for themselves what is going on in this country. I asked, a few months ago, for visas to be granted for certain Russians, acquaintances of mine, well-known communists, whose opinions I do not myself share. I have argued with them against their opinions; I have talked with them in Russia, I have talked with them in The Hague, in Holland, and I can say that the Dutch Government does not seem to be influenced by the tremors and alarms which affect the Home Secretary in this matter.
It seems to me that no earthly harm could come of a visit of these gentlemen, in spite of their communist opinions. Possibly great good might come from their visiting this country, as they wish to do, for a limited period of three or four weeks, to study the situation here. What is the objection? The Home Secretary, in the debate a few months ago, gave us as his principal, and almost his only ground for exclusion, that the people who wish to come here might displace British labour. I should like to know what British labour these communists from Russia would be likely to displace? If they displaced anybody's labour, it would be that of the British agitator, who also causes great tremors in the mind of the Home Secretary. Therefore, I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would object to these gentlemen on the ground that they were displacing British labour. If that is not the objection to their coming here, what is it? If the Under-
Secretary to the Home Office replies to my remarks, I should like him to tell me. I hope he will not put me off with mere political prejudice against these gentlemen's opinions. I hope he will not endeavour to dispose of the matter by raising a cloud of political prejudice, which is so easy to raise, because this is really a question worth answering.
What is the objection to having these gentlemen here? Are they going, in three or four weeks, to upset the British Constitution—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"]—the hon. Member says "yes." I do not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his faith in the British Constitution and in its stability. I think that that Constitution, which has stood the test of so many centuries, might stand the test of the presence here for three weeks of certain gentlemen of Communist opinions, and that we might very well be enlightened, both as to the reason why these gentlemen should be excluded, and as to whether it is the policy of the Home Office to get rid of aliens who are already in this country on the same ground, namely, that they hold Communist opinions.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask if the Under-Secretary can give me a clear and definite answer as to whether the Home Office, or the Private Inquiry Department, consider that the holding of Communist views, and the preaching or speaking of Communist views, is a criminal offence? The reason I ask that question is because I sat in the Thames Police Court, and heard an officer tell the magistrate that all he knew against two persons who were before him was that they were members of the Communist party. That was given by the officer as a reason why they should be treated as persons of criminal intent. I have tried, by question, across this Table, to get an answer, and I should like to get a clear and definite reply to the question to-night.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple put one or two questions about the Shops (Early Closing) Act. I am sorry the Home Secretary is not here. It is not owing to any discourtesy on his part, but my right hon. Friend has been here since a quarter to three this afternoon. He has to be here later, to answer various
points, so he has gone out to have some dinner now, and has asked me to answer my hon. Friend. If there is any point which I do not cover, and if my hon. Friend will let me know, the Home Secretary will deal with it on his return. I understand my hon. Friend's point was that he wished the Home Secretary to allow the sale of cream until a later hour to excursionists arriving by steamer at Ilfracombe pier.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Departing.

Mr. PETO: And dairy produce.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I may say that applications have been received from time to time, by the Home Office, from seaside and health resorts for a relaxation of the Shops Act. The Home Office have no powers to relax these provisions at all without legislation. The only power which the Secretary of State possesses is to suspend the operation of the Order to such time as he thinks fit during the Christmas season or on other special occasions, and any such suspension takes effect not only in that particular district but in respect of all classes of shops throughout the country. He has no power to allow any relaxation for particular districts. I agree that there may be a very good reason for relaxing certain provisions of those Acts, and the Home Secretary has given me an intimation that if it is found necessary to do so he will see if it is possible to introduce legislation to meet the difficulties which have been mentioned.

Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman say that under the Act of 1920 these powers are denied to the Home Secretary?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It depends on the meaning of the word "emergency." My right hon. Friend says that if the hon. Member has any special case he will see if it is possible to meet it, and I cannot go further than that. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton) dealt with the way in which aliens are treated who want an extension of their visas in this country, and he said they were received in a very dirty room which was in a dilapidated condition. I may point out that the Home Office has been under the process of redecoration during
the last few weeks, and I should have been very sorry to have received the hon. Member in my own room under existing conditions. No ill-treatment is meted out to these people, and every case is treated on its merits. I have had to look into a good many of these cases, and no reasonable requests for an extension of their leave are refused if it can be proved that such an extension ought to be given. Very often we find that an alien, when he comes over here, presumably for a few months, asks for an extension of his leave. Then he asks for another extension and gets it, and sometimes it is found that he is really asking for these extensions of leave in order to remain permanently in this country. Unless a really good case for an extension is made out, it is not granted. The same hon. Member complained that sufficient visas are not given to Russians who want to come to this country. May I point out that a visa does not enable an alien to come into this country, and he has to get permission from the immigration officer.

Mr. C. BUXTON: Does the hon. Member suggest that he could get here without a visa?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not say that, but merely getting a visa does not mean that he is going to be allowed to land here. First of all we do our best not to allow any alien to come into the country, if there is any probability of him taking a job from a British subject. Secondly, we do not allow any alien to land if it is shown that he is medically or morally undesirable. Thirdly, we should not allow any alien to land if it can be presumed that he is likely to become a charge upon the rates. We go further than that and we do not allow aliens to come here unless they can show some special reason why they ought to be allowed to land. In reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lana-bury) because a man happens to be a Communist is no reason, so far as the Home Office is concerned, why he should not be allowed to land. If he is a Communist and does not show any reason why he should be allowed to land then he is not permitted to land.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If you know that a Communist is coming here to sow mischief and distraction in this country why should he be allowed to land?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think what I have already said answers the question just put to me by my hon. and learned Friend. Unless they can show a good and special reason why they should be allowed to land, permission is not given. In view of the shortage of housing accommodation in this country it is not reasonable to allow a flood of aliens to come into this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: You allow the rich people to come here

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It does not matter to us whether they are rich or poor and we make no difference.

Captain W. BENN: With reference to the cost of all this business, is it not a fact that 2,000 aliens were refused permission to land at a total cost of £70,000 representing £35 per head?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact that we still have in prison certain persons who were incarcerated at the time of the disturbances in Ireland—I refer particularly to the case of certain soldiers of the Connaught Rangers who took part in an unfortunate affair during the height of the Irish trouble? We know that there was a general amnesty for all such prisoners, and a general deliverance took place from our gaols, and we wiped the slate clean when the Treaty of Peace was signed with the Irish Free State.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that these soldiers were imprisoned by the military authorities, and they would not come under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That was a point I desired to impress upon the hon. and gallant Member if he had given way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would have given way at once had I known, and under the circumstances I will not pursue that point. I shall take an opportunity, probably on the Colonial Office Vote or some other occasion, of exploring this matter. I want to raise a different aspect of the question of permitting aliens to enter this country. I am not referring to distinguished Communist politicians which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Accrington, nor do I allude to people who come here to stir up trouble, or take work which would otherwise be done by Englishmen. I refer to a different class altogether. My
constitunecy, being a great seaport, is one of the points of contact with the continent, and it is one of the ports from which the wealth and power of England is built up, and we have in that port a fairly high proportion of people of foreign extraction, many of them being naturalised and occupying responsible positions in the town.
These people have in some cases aged relatives, and sometimes very young relatives who are left orphans, in Poland and the Ukraine. I have addressed a number of requests to the Home Office to allow them to bring their very old or very young relatives to this country. In all these cases I have given assurances from responsible people knowing these persons in England that they will not become chargeable to the rates. Their relatives here are in a fairly wealthy position, and the people who were allowed to come here in these cases would not be employed to the detriment of Englishmen. If people who are householders in Hull choose to bring these old or young relatives from countries where they are now being persecuted or suffering hardships, I do not think the Home Secretary has any right to say that they should not come here, or to assume that they will increase the shortage of houses. I have a great number of these cases, and I have not brought them up in the House before. I have carried on a correspondence with the Home Office, and I have had very prompt and courteous replies which have been very sympathetic, but these people have never been allowed to come. Here is the case of a man whose two sons fought right through the War. They were not conscripted, but they volunteered at the beginning of the War, and their father, owing to poor circumstances, had to leave South Russia, and his son was left in charge of the grandmother. The brother of these two British soldiers has asked permission to bring a son over here because he has now no relative to look after him in Russia.

Mr. BANKS: Can the hon. and gallant Member say that that son from Russia will not ultimately be employed to the detriment of British working men?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The father has given an undertaking that he will not be so employed. I pointed out to this man the objection of the Home Office as to increasing unem-
ployment, and so on, but we have assurances from these people, who are in responsible positions, that this son will not take employment away from any Englishman. I have a number of cases like that, and that is one which was refused. There is another case of four young children, who have been left orphans in Lodz. The applicant, in this case, is married to an Englishman, and she wishes to bring these poor little nieces here to give them a home. They have been left orphans; the mother is dead and the father has disappeared. There they are in Poland. This is another case in which I have met with a refusal. It strikes me as a rather hard case.

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: Only the day before yesterday I wrote a letter in which permission was given for a young alien to come in. I repeat, that every case is considered on its merits.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That encourages me, at any rate. I have had quite a number of cases where there has been a refusal since the present Government came into power and since the present Under-Secretary assumed his high position. There was another case only a week or two ago of two young girls who had been deported from America to Poland as a result of a technical offence against the Immigration Laws. They were Jewish girls, and the Jewish guardians here asked for a little grace—asked to be allowed to keep them for a few days until arrangements could be made for them to go to Holland where they had relatives. That was refused, and they had to be sent to Poland where they have no relatives at all. I think the Home Office might be a little more soft-hearted, or, shall I say, a little more humane in these cases. These people are not agitators, and I hope, where possible, the decisions will be reconsidered and, in future, a little more sympathy will be shown in dealing with such cases. I know there are some super-officials always looking for an excuse to wave the Union Jack, but it is not all the officials of the Home Office who are imbued with that spirit, and I, therefore, ask that the law be interpreted with a little more liberality in these undoubtedly hard cases.
There is one other question I desire to raise. It is in connection with the recent attempt to interfere with and terrorise the Press, as represented by raids on the "Daily Herald." This paper published a photograph of a submarine. It was a small, bad print, and I defy anyone to declare seriously, and much less to prove, that the photograph gave information to any foreign power whatsoever. The paper's offices were raided several times; the staff were called on to fill in forms; they were cross-examined, and an attempt was made to remove the remaining copies of the paper, the great bulk of the issue of which had already been distributed all over the country. When I put a question to the Home Secretary, he raised the question of the Official Secrets Act. Now, I know that Act rather well. I spent a hard night wrestling with Lord Hewart, who was then Attorney-General, over the Bill. I did not throw him down. Again and again he told the Committee that the Bill was not in any way aimed at the liberty of the Press or of the subject, but the object was merely to strengthen the hands of the executive in dealing with foreign spies and in stopping espionage. He said it could not possibly be used in the way I had suggested. But, as a matter of fact, it has been used to justify this miniature Third Degree exercised on the junior members of the "Daily Herald" staff, and in demanding that forms be filled in, and so on. We know that such conduct is absolutely alien to the British idea of liberty, and similar tactics have always been resented by our people. It is only because we live in rather abnormal times that these things occur. Much worse things were done under the late Government. The present Government is very much more free from the war spirit, and I do hope that the "Daily Herald" incident, is not to be taken as symptomatic of its attitude on these questions.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Home Office had nothing whatever to do with this matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman can hardly get over it in that way. The raid was carried out by detectives from Scotland Yard, under, presumably, the authority of the Home Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand it was not by order of the Home Secretary. If it was done by Scotland Yard, then it is a matter which should be raised on the Police Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: It could only be done by the "competent military authority," whatever that may be.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It was done by the police in the exercise of their duty, but not under orders from the Home Office.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But surely the Home Office is responsible for the action of the police?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise the case on this Vote, seeing that there is a separate Vote for the Police.

Mr. G. SPENCER: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote whether he can now see his way clear to appoint another medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the county of Nottingham for dealing with certain industrial diseases. I have been in communication with the Department for some short time, and not long since the authorities declined to appoint any further medical referee for the county. I should like to say at the present time there is no medical referee for the county of Nottingham to deal with disputed certificates as to industrial diseases, and cases have in consequence to be sent to Sheffield. The men affected have to pay their expenses to Sheffield to be examined in cases in which the certificate given by the certifying surgeon is questioned by a colliery company. Recently a case arose in which a man's certificate was questioned, and he was told he must go to Sheffield to consult the medical referee there. He had not the money to pay even his fare, and his case consequently went by default; because he did not put in an appearance the verdict was practically given against him. But there is a much more serious aspect of this case to which I wish to call attention. I am sorry to say that the workmen in the county of Nottingham have lost faith in the present medical referee, not because they want to allege that he is unfair, or that he acts in an ex-parte manner, but they object to him because they believe that he is
not conducting cases consistently with the description of the disease in the Act. I have made the statement in this House before and I repeat it now. This medical referee made an admission in a court of law, while acting as medical officer for a colliery company, that oscillation was an objective symptom of miners' nystagmus, and that in the absence of oscillation there was really no disease. I think when a medical referee makes a declaration of that sort he is no longer acceptable as a medical referee. We have been too long the victims of unsettled opinions in regard to this disease.
For over 25 years there has been a conflict of medical opinion as to the cause of the disease itself. Dr. Snell, of Sheffield, declared that the cause of the disease was the position which the miner had to assume when at work, but others assert that the position has little or nothing to do with the disease, which is a question of light. There is also a difference of opinion on another question. One school of thought says that the subjective symptoms of this fell disease are more important that the objective, while another school says that the most important aspect of the case is the objective aspect. One side says the objective symptoms count; the other side claim that they do not count. The medical referee to whom I have referred belongs to the school of thought who hold that if objective symptoms are not present then the disease does not exist. I ask the Under-Secretary to accede to the demand which is being made by my association, and which was declined by the Home Secretary's predecessor, for the appointment of another medical referee. I think this matter deserves a far greater degree of consideration than has so far been given to it. The one thing that they ought to establish with regard to the medical referee is that confidence is reposed in him by the two parties. As the matter stands at present, there is not one workman in the county of Nottingham who has any confidence in the present medical referee—not, as I have said, because he is acting in an ex parte manner, but simply because his decision is determined by one particular standpoint, and by the school of thought to which he belongs. I have in the House at the present time six certificates relating to three men. These three men were sent to one ophthalmic specialist in Nottingham, and he declared that two of
them had nystagmus and that the other had not. I sent the same three men to another ophthalmic specialist in Leeds, and that specialist said that the two men who had been declared by the Nottingham, specialist to have nystagmus had not the disease, and that the third man, whom the Nottingham specialist had declared not to have nystagmus, had the disease. The two points are that we have no Nottingham referee, and we ask for one, because we have lost confidence in the other, on the ground that he belongs to a school of medical thought which we believe at the present time is not consonant with the description of the disease laid down in the Act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not to have some reply to the questions that have been put? I put certain questions to the Home Office, and it is usual, I believe, to give a reply.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought I had answered the hon. and gallant Member. In fact, I thought that, perhaps, I had been discourteous in interrupting his speech. I said that we consider every case on its merits. I believe that only two days ago the Home Office did issue a permit, I think, for a young Polish girl to come to England to join her relatives in this country. Every case is considered on its merits, and any case that may be presented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be so considered. With regard to the question which has been raised in reference to the medical referee, the point is an important one, and, perhaps, the hon Member will allow us to consider it.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £185,869, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,060,591, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Con-
tribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation."—[Note: £3,100,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. HAYES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
There are several matters to which I desire to refer in connection with this Vote. Some will have reference, perhaps, directly to the police service in particular, and others will have reference to both the interest of the police and of the public generally. The Home Secretary is quite aware that during the last few months there has been a good deal of talk with regard to economy. The first note that I want to strike is that I think this is a very suitable opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to indicate whether there is likely to be any revision of the conditions of service obtaining at the present time as the result of the improved standards which were given some three or four years ago. We have had a statement in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicating that there is a likelihood of some revision, or a necessity for inquiring into the present conditions; and I want to remind the Home Secretary that two years ago the police were asked if they would take part in the great campaign for national economy. As a matter almost of Hobson's choice, as I think I may put it, they agreed to accept the proposal of the Department that there should be, in addition to the legalised deduction for superannuation purposes, a levy of 2½ per cent. on their pay. Twelve months went by, and the police expected that that levy would disappear entirely, but they found at the end of the 12 months that it was renewed again, on the same ground of economy, for a further period of 12 months. There is a good deal of feeling in the Service that this method of effecting economies is not altogether a satisfactory method, in so far as it takes by a levy that which it would be otherwise illegal to take by a deduction for superannuation purposes. I think, therefore, that we ought to have some indication from the Home Secretary now as to how far and for how long this 2½ per cent. additional levy is to be maintained. I am quite sure that the police of the country have no more desire
to shirk their responsibilities to the nation than any other section of workers, but it is very clear that there is no section of workers who desire to have inflicted upon them, if they can possibly avoid it, a reduction of wages, and, although the status of the police may be fairly satisfactory, we on these benches, anyhow, recognise that, so long as a standard is maintained in the Service, the less argument there is to be used against other workers that it is time further reductions were inflicted upon them.
There are certain economies which I think could very well be effected in the Service, and which would, perhaps, obviate the imposition of this levy. If we take the personnel of New Scotland Yard, for instance, a Department which is closely associated with the Home Office, and if we analyse the number of highly-paid appointments in comparison with the number that existed before the War, we find that we have three most important appointments there which never existed before the War, namely the appointments of the deputy-assistant commissioners. These appointments arose during the War and since the War, and I feel almost inclined to say that they were merely jobs created for the purpose of absorbing officers from the Army, and others, perhaps, who had been engaged on other duties during the War, and for whom some appointment had to be found. That was admitted, up to a point, by Sir Basil Thomson when giving evidence before the Desborough Committee. He made reference to the fact that, when the Director of Intelligence was appointed Director of Intelligence, it was necessary, in connection with the dual control that would exist, to make some special appointment of rank in order that a certain officer could be absorbed as a deputy-assistant commissioner. That appointment was made for that purpose, and now we have, in addition to the pre-War complement of commissioner, assistant commisisoners, and chief constables, three deputy - assistant commissioners, and also two other Army officers who are assisting one of the deputy-assistant commissioners. It does seem to me that these appoinements cannot really be necessary, in the light of the work that is performed at New Scotland Yard, which may have increased in some departments, but has obviously decreased in others. We have at the Yard an Establishment Officer,
but one never heard of an Establishment Officer prior to the War. If it is a policy of economy to appoint these highly paid officials, it is difficult to convince the rank and file of the Service that, if there is to be a real policy of economy, it ought not to be exercised, at least, on the higher ranks at the same time as, or before, it is exercised on the lower-paid ranks, who can ill-afford any reduction that may be made.
8.0 P.M.
There is another matter to which I want to refer, namely, the appointment of military officers as chief constables in the police forces of this country. I am sure the Committee will understand that I have no desire to strike a discordant note in regard to any of the gallant officers of His Majesty's military or naval Services. I merely want to approach this matter from the point of view of what is good business. If we spend huge sums of money in salaries for the most important posts in the police service, the ratepayers and taxpayers have a right to ask that those who are going to be appointed to these posts shall be people who have a real knowledge of their job, and can give good service to the community in the posts to which they Lave been appointed. Out of 69 chief constables in the county constabularies, something like 60 are military officers, and the Desborough Committee, which was composed of representatives of all shades of political thought, made very definite recommendations with regard to the appointment of chief constables. They held the view that, as we explained to them in the evidence placed before them, if you want to make the police service a real profession, in which men will feel that they are men and will have opportunities as other individuals have, you must leave the highest posts of the Service open to them; and the Desborough Committee recommended in those terms. Since that, however, there have been quite a number of appointments of Army officers without any previous police experience. One of the most flagrant cases of the appointment of military officers was the case of the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire, Major Nicholson, who happened to be the son-in-law of the Chief Constable. He was residing with the Chief Constable immediately prior to
his appointment, and was probably the only individual in Hampshire who was aware that the resignation of the then Deputy Chief Constable was pending. Consequently, the first applicant for the post was the son-in-law of the then serving Chief Constable, and it is a strange commentary that Major Nicholson, who wars appointed Deputy Chief Constable, knowing nothing of the job, should be put in control. Is it any wonder that under those circumstances you get bad administration in the Service and unsatisfactory disciplinary control of your police forces?
Another question is that of an appeal tribunal. We often hear of very serious cases of men being dismissed from the police service, men who feel they have a grievance, men who have tried to get some remedy for that grievance. Because of that experience, extending over many years, evidence was laid before the Des-borough Committee, who, in their recommendations, said they were of the opinion that an independent tribunal should be established to which police officers, who felt that they were suffering under a grievance by dismissal, might submit their case, and have the best legal advice they could obtain, the same as any criminal. That tribunal has not been set up, and the omission to set it up has created rather a difficult position. The recommendation is on page 9 of the Desborough Report, as follows:
On the whole we recommend that the tribunal to war appeals from forces in England and Wales should be a barrister of standing (possibly a County Court Judge or a Recorder) to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of hearing such appeals. … There should be power to reverse the decision of the Chief Constable or to reduce the penalty, the decision to be final.
A very sensible recommendation, which, had it been put into operation, would have obviated many unpleasant cases that have arisen at St. Helens, Warrington, Ashton-under-Lyne, and other places, where we have sheaves of complaints of the methods with which these men were treated. Some of them had to take civil remedy in the Court, which, after all, is not a very satisfactory remedy, because the point at issue is whether there has been a wrongful dismissal, and, of course, the law hold that police authorities can do no wrong as far as police dismissals
are concerned, and, therefore, they stand very little chance in the way of ordinary appeals to Court. I sincerely hope we shall have some indication from the Home Secretary that these matters are under consideration.
There is another, and a very important matter which concerns both the police and public, and that is the conveyance of prisoners from police courts to remand gaols, or on conviction, or transfer from one police authority to another. I think there is nothing more degrading, either for the prisoner or for the police officer, or for the public generally, than to witness the transportation, by ordinary means of conveyance by train or 'bus, of a prisoner handcuffed to a uniformed officer travelling with other members of the public to a place where he has to carry out any punishment that may have been imposed upon him. I appreciate the difficulties at times in obtaining private and closed conveyances, and I want to do credit to the Home Secretary and the Home Office generally in this matter as far as the London area is concerned. I think there is a very genuine desire on the part of the authorities that prisoners conveyed between railway station and railway station should be conveyed in cabs. I do not say it is always carried out. My remarks have particular application to the provincial areas, and only last week in the borough of Birkenhead there arose a question of conveying prisoners from the Birkenhead Petty Sessions to Liverpool across the ferry. The Council, owing to the proposed expenditure of something like £150 to replace the old prison van, decided, in the interests of economy, that they would not spend the money, and the prisoners would have to be conveyed in the ordinary way, by being handcuffed to police officers and taken over, amongst other passengers, in the ferry boat and the usual conveyances.
Police officers do not like it; prisoners do not like it, and it is certainly an additional punishment, which is not, perhaps, looked upon as punishment by the Court in the ordinary way. It is not a good thing for the public or for our young people. The tender minds of children are sometimes given to a strain of humour, which none of us would deprecate, perhaps, in which they do not realise the gravity of the situation, and, perhaps, feeling the freedom of their
child life, may throw out a taunt against some poor prisoner. It is obnoxious to a police officer, who has a heart the same as any other human being, and does not like to think his conduct or the prisoner is being subjected to any unnecessary degradation. In many cases police officers have taken prisoners into refreshment houses, and paid expenses out of their own pocket rather than suffer a sensitive prisoner to that degradation. I hope the Home Secretary will indicate that he is prepared to pay some attention to this matter, and get rid of this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The next question with which I want to deal will, perhaps, be a thorny problem for the Home Department. It has reference to a very old standing matter. It does not merely affect one particular individual who was in the police office, but it affects the whole police system of this country, and it affects the welfare and safety of the whole community. The reference I want to make is to one whose name may be familiar to Members—Ex-Inspector John Syme, of the London Metropolitan Police Force. One feels it is necessary to recall certain details, and I will inform the House that in January, 1910, 13 years ago, Inspector John Syme was dismissed from the Metropolitan Police. For 13 years this man has waged one of the greatest personal fights that have ever been waged with officialdom. There may be much to be said for and against, according to the point of view of the people who argue the case, but I know this—and it is the considered view of the Service—that ex-Inspector Syme, one of the whitest men who ever wore a police uniform, a man who has undergone untold suffering, was merely playing the real game as an inspector of the Metropolitan Police. In August, 1909, four months before Syme was dismissed, two men were arrested by two constables in a street in Pimlico. The two men prior to being arrested were creating an annoyance by unduly ringing a door bell and disturbing the neighbours. The two officers came along, and as the two men were under the influence of drink to some extent, the officers could get no satisfactory explanation from them, and therefore conveyed them as prisoners to the station for inquiry. The station officer, who was Inspector Syme, carried out his
duties as laid down in the general orders of the Metropolitan Police, and first of all satisfied himself that the offence was one for which there was power of arrest, and, secondly, considered whether there was sufficient evidence forthcoming that would be likely to sustain the charge when the prisoners appeared at the Police Court the next morning. On the first point he was satisfied there was power to arrest, but on the second point he was not satisfied there would be sufficient evidence forthcoming to sustain the charge.
Hon. Members ought to recognise the difficulties of the police in trying to get at the truth from a prisoner in a heated moment in a locality where passers-by are just merely interested spectators, and, therefore, the only place in which you can expect a reasonable analysis is the calmer atmosphere of the police station. Inspector Syme investigated it, as I am sure you would have him, thoroughly, and with due regard to the liberty of the subject. He discovered that the two men had a perfect right to ring the door-bell, as they actually resided in the house in question, and it was simply some domestic difference between the men and their wives that they were locked out. Therefore they had a right to ring their door-bell, and Inspector Syme, in quite a proper manner, recognising the liberty of the subject, released the two prisoners, and everything should have ended quite happily. It was necessary, however, in order to record the occurrence, that Syme should make an entry in the official book known as the Refused Charge book. The following morning the entry was examined by Syme's immediate superior officer, who quite endorsed the action of Syme in refusing to take the charge, but called the two constables to him, and reported both constables for bringing an improper charge to the station, and the two men became defaulters.
Syme, in the course of the inquiry, was called upon for his report. He submitted it, and, in doing so, he justified the action of the constables and his own action in subsequently releasing the two prisoners. But those above Syme felt that there was a case against the constables, and were very much annoyed that Inspector Syme should take the side of those two men. It was not the first occasion on which he
had stood by his subordinates when they had been tyrannised or victimised by other superior officers. In the Service, of which I know more than hon. Members in this House, it is a crime for any officer to protect a subordinate officer, when another superior officer is at all concerned in going for that subordinate. He stood by the men, and attended the inquiry, and said the constables were quite correct. The charge was withdrawn, and the constables were merely cautioned. In the reports and statements made to clear the constables, Syme told the Inquiry Officer, his Superintendent, his Chief Inspector, his Chief Constable, and Commissioner some unsavoury home truths, and he was afterwards reported for bringing allegations against his superior officers.
There is no question at all that the allegations which Syme brought against his superior officers were allegations that were commonly understood by nearly every man at Symes' station. There was a general acceptance of the truth of the statements which Syme had made, and the inquiry proceeded. Syme, of course, was in conflict with every superior officer because of his position. Men, brother inspectors, sergeants and constables who, if it were not for fear of victimisation, would have given evidence which would support Syme were afraid to do so because of the consequences to themselves. It was subsequently proved and admitted by the authorities, and by the official minutes of the Commissioners, that there was some reluctance on the part of certain officials to give evidence because they feared the results, and it was only after an understanding to some extent that they were prepared to say even what they did. The result was that the case against Syme was dismissed. It is reasonable to assume that if an inspector, a man with considerable experience in administrative work and in ordinary police work, who had had a brilliant career up to that time, could bring certain charges against a superior officer there are good grounds for his doing so and if he were given a proper opportunity, if those who could bear testimony to the truth of his statements were free from the fear of subsequent victimisation, I am sure the charges which he has brought would have been more than satisfactorily proved so far as the public were
concerned. But the position was that the charge was withdrawn and it was either one of two things. Either Syme was right or Syme was wrong. If Syme was right the only action the Commissioners could properly take was to deal with the officers against whom the allegations were made. If Syme was wrong in his allegations he ought to have been dealt with as a disciplinary charge. But the Commissioner withdrew the charge. He did not even punish him. After he had withdrawn the charge he directed that Inspector Syme was to be transferred to another station in order to part him from his immediate superior officer, between whom and him there was a certain amount of bad blood.
In the police service transfer is always regarded as a measure of punishment, whether the officials say it is not or otherwise. To transfer him from one station to another more often than not means the transfer of his home. It is penalising his children, who may be receiving their education in the locality. It is changing all the shopping places for his wife, it is disturbing his home life, it is probably taking him out of a decent house and putting him into an inferior one. All these conditions weigh with a police officer when he is forced to have a transfer, and Syme said if his transfer was necessitated because there was bad blood he was not the officer who ought to have been transferred. It ought to have been the superior officer against whom he had made the charge. The Commissioner decided that Syme was to go. Because of Symes' refusal he was reduced to the rank of station sergeant, and one has to bear in mind that Syme is a Scot, and Scotsmen do not take things lying down. It may be all very well for Southerners to say Syme ought to have accepted the inevitable, but if we always accepted the inevitable there would never be a fight made and nothing has ever been done unless there has been a fight made. Syme could not accept the inevitable. He revolted. Any man with spirit would revolt. I would not have served in the police service with a degraded rank. Would any officer continue to serve in the Army if he had any real spirit after a degradation? It is unreasonable to expect it, and if he suffers from any grievance he will fight for the rectification of the grievance, and if he will not fight he is not worthy of the name of a man. That is my conception
of what a man should be. Syme, therefore, was dismissed from the force for refusing to accept a reduction in rank. That was in January, 1910.
For 13 long years this man has fought in and out of season and propagated his cause by post. Members of Parliament and Government after Government have been worried with communications from him and from responsible members of the public. He has held meetings in the open air and indoors. He has had audiences of which any political party might have been proud. He has had support from all sections of the community, and, what is more, he has had an intimation from the Home Secretary himself, not our present Home Secretary—I think our present Home Secretary would have been far more generous—but from Mr. Winston Churchill that, having gone into the whole question he was prepared to reinstate him in the Metropolitan Police if he would accept the reduction in rank that had been imposed upon him by the Commissioner. In other words, "Unless you go back as a station sergeant, I cannot reinstate you, because, even though you may be right, if I put you back as an inspector I have then to punish someone else." Why not? Why punish the innocent in order to save the guilty? It is an argument that no Government Department ought to imply. It is an argument that is unworthy of a Government Department that wants to see fair play and a clean and impartial administration. Syme is now an old man, 50 years of age. Had he completed his career, as everyone had reason to believe he would have completed it, rising to the highest post in the service, he would have been entitled to a pension this year after 30 years' service. He would have been a credit to the community. He is a clean-hearted man. This House would have been proud of him. You are always proud of your policemen, except when they do something, at times, that is unpopular, but I believe quite sincerely you are proud of a clean police force, but do not wait for other people to produce it for you. Produce it yourselves. I believe you will find greater satisfaction in upholding the police service when you have done the right thing by one who has made such a gallant stand against an obvious injustice and iniquity.
In addition to that, Syme has perhaps made certain statements which have taken him before the law. He has made threats against the person of His Majesty the King and against other individuals. Let us examine what the value of those threats is. Syme, as I know him, and as he is known to all those who have been in close contact with him for many years, is probably one of the most generous-hearted men you could wish to find. He is the least likely person in the world to do an injury to anyone. I do not believe he would do an injury either to the King or to any other member of the community. He has made those threats knowing full well that the authorities would be compelled to take action against him, and that would give him the only publicity he could secure, because he had no other means at his disposal. He has served terms of imprisonment. He has been followed from place to place by members of the service of which he was an honoured member at one time. There is no more distasteful job to a policeman than to have to hang round after John Syme. The police service financially supported him and helped him in his fight. Is it to be said it is too late in the day, that it happened so long ago that we cannot reopen the question? I want to appeal to the Home Secretary. This is not a question whether it would be right to reinstate Syme or to give him the inquiry that he has been asking for just because previous Governments have refused to concede it. The Conservative party, however it may differ in its political faith from the Labour party, is at least sincere in its own point of view, and apart from any political question, I ask the House to view this question as one of doing justice to a man who has really never done anything that can be said to be immoral in any shape or form. Previous Governments have tampered with this question of justice to Syme. Here is an opportunity for the present Government not to be tied down by the rulings and precedents of previous Governments, which are often the curse of succeeding Governments. Here is an opportunity to do the right thing, and the police and the public will be proud of them. They will realise that at last we have a Government which is not prepared to kow-tow to the decisions of previous Governments, but that it has a will and opinion of its own. Even if it needs a wrench with
old time traditions, the result will be far more satisfactory to the Government if they do justice to this old man, who would not lift his finger to harm any individual, and thus satisfy the conscience of the community. If they continue to refuse to put out the olive branch to Syme, he will go on with his fight—and what decent man would not support him in that fight?—and it will only serve to intensify the spirit of revolt and rebellion which exists in the breasts of all decent-minded people who understand the pros and cons of this matter.
There is much more that I would have liked to have said in this case, but there is another matter to which I wish to refer. Syme made many allegations about the corruption, tyranny and victimisation which existed in the service, and I know that all that Syme said is, in the main, perfectly true. There is no one prouder of the police service than I am. I was born in the police service. I was brought up in it, and I am of the police service, and I want to see the police service carry out its proper function and be an ennobling profession. It is one of the noblest professions that we can have if it carries out its proper functions, putting out the hand of friendship to rich and poor alike. Syme endeavoured to clean up much that was unsavoury in the police force. I do not wish to wash dirty linen here. It is very unpleasant for all people concerned, but if we cannot get satisfaction outside the House, then this must be the only place in which we can fight these issues. If the Home Secretary will take the bold line and give us this inquiry, I believe he will do the right thing. There are 60,000 men in the service, but there is only a handful of men who perhaps may be wrong ones. The police force in the main is a clean service. It is composed of men taken from all walks of life, and is no better and no worse than any other section of the community. If there is a black sheep here and there, then, like the legal profession, the medical profession, or the clergy, the Press get hold of that particular case and the whole service is tarred with the same brush, as if what one man does every other member of the service must be doing although they have not yet been caught. That is the danger of having to wash dirty linen in public. In the main,
policemen would welcome any inquiry that would tend to eliminate from the police force anything of that kind. It would help them to do their duty fearlessly, without prejudice, and without fear of victimisation, in the knowledge that they will be supported by the Government.
The other issue is the question of the men who rook part in the police strike in 1918–19. I ask the House, and I believe I shall be successful in my plea, to divest its mind of prejudice, and to endeavour to forget for the moment the atmosphere that was created by the Press, and by a set of circumstances arising out of the War, in 1919. Since I have been in this House one thing has struck me very much, and it is that the House does not regard any Member in the light of the reputation which he had given to him, probably by the Press, before he entered the House. Since I have been here, and I learned it very quickly, I have found the hand of friendship held out to me by Members from all parts of the House. There was no unkind reference from any Member in regard to the reputation which had been given to me by certain organs in the Press. For that I want to thank the House, because no one realises as I do what I have been up against since the police strike of 1919. Having asked the House to continue to divest itself of any suspicion or prejudice, I want to deal with a few occurrences in the hope that the House will appreciate the point of view of one who has hitherto been refused an opportunity of stating the other man's point of view. That is what I want to give the Committee to-night.
I am not going to ask the Home Secretary for anything unreasonable. The best case is spoiled by unreasonable requests. Even with a bad case, if a reasonable request is made far more consideration can be given to that request than would be given to an unreasonable request, even for the best case. The request I make to the Home Secretary is not to reinstate the police strikers into the Service—that would be an impossible request until he had satisfied both himself and his colleagues of the Cabinet that there is another point of view besides that which was held by the Cabinet in 1919—but I merely ask that we should have an opportunity of stating our case, and letting our case,
as we state it, be balanced against the case that can be made out against it. We ask for an inquiry. It may be argued that if we are going to ask for inquiries all the time, that we shall be doing nothing else but having inquiries. I would rather have an inquiry every day and have a clean conscience than refuse to have an inquiry and have a good deal of mud-slinging going on behind the scenes, and an unpleasant atmosphere as a result. Before and after Syme was dismissed, discontent in the police force manifested itself. I can remember when I was a little boy, my own father, who rose to the rank of Chief Inspector in the police, being victimised for expressing his point of view, for merely saying that policemen ought to have the right to confer together for the purpose of forwarding their views.
So far many years there was discontent in the services, and after Syme's dismissal things became so bad in the police that men were forced to get together in order to talk over their points of view, and endeavour to place their points of view before New Scotland Yard, the various watch committees, and the chief constables, and even Parliament itself. The answer of the authorities was, "It is illegal of policemen even to collect together to discuss their grievances," and very heavy punishments were inflicted on policemen for having dared to meet together, punishments not only of a monetary character, but men were dismissed from the police force and were deprived of their rights to pension and superannuation, and during the war years they were discharged from the police and immediately placed in the Army. To the credit of those men they served their country well while in the Army and subsequently they were reinstated in the police force. Did the policy of the authorities disseminate the good ideas which the authorities wanted the men to have, eliminate their grievances and prevent them from meeting together to consider them? It did not. What it did was, as it will always do, to force the movement underground.
It compelled the men to speak in whispers; they began to lose their self-respect, and to take their stand apart and not to face their fellow-men. Backbiting and tale carrying were the in-
evitable harvest. Men who had ambition—and it is right for a man to have ambition in the police service—to get on in the force, had that ambition exploited by unscrupulous superior officers so that those men often when told to go out and—to use the expression which we understand in the service—"bring them in," had temptation put before them. I have seen it often. I have seen men charged with perjury at the Old Bailey as a result of this system, men who have had ambition perhaps greater than they should have had, and who, with a lively anticipation of favours to come, did everything asked by their superior officers, whose only aim was results, so that there were more charges and more summonses; that those things did exist no mar of any experience in the service could deny. After the first strike of 1918, after many representations to General Sir Neville Macready, he abolished the allowance of 5s. per week which was a charge allowance granted to sub-divisional inspectors when they reached a certain number of charges and summonses., which meant very often loss of self-respect to young and ambitious policemen, and caused great injustice to a law-abiding community.
Those are only some of the things which served to agitate the minds of the policeman, unsettle them and made them feel as if everyone's hand was against them. When you were talking to your sergeant you never knew whether he was extracting something to go to your superior officer. There was the breath of suspicion wherever you went, misunderstanding and disloyalty, even one to the other, and though you had a Royal Commission in 1909 that did not go to the root of the evils. The evils went on, and they culminated in 1918 in a strike of London policemen. Those who may not have been in London nevertheless may remember how the world was astonished when policemen in London hung up their truncheons and walked out. It was very often said at that time that there were undue influences behind the movement. When the disclosures were made arising out of that strike, both Parliament and the public generally were shocked at what they learned in regard to the condition which obtained in the Police Force.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister at that time.
I notified him that I was about to raise this matter to-night so that he might be present if he wished, and have an opportunity of refuting any statement which was incorrect. With a facility that was not unknown in 1918, he suddenly appeared on the scene, waved the magic wand, and said, "What is all this about?" There were policemen in Downing Street and in Whitehall, off duty—many of them in plain clothes—but every man with an understanding that let any person transgress against the law, though they were on strike they themselves, as members of the community, would carry out their duties to the community in the event of an offence being committed. The Prime Minister at that time stepped into the picture, and he did what the Home Secretary at that time and the Commissioner for many years had refused to do, sent for the leaders of the strike. It is important to remember that the men for whom he sent were the President of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, the honorary Secretary, and the members of the Executive Committee of that society. One of the first things he asked them was, "Why was I not told about this?" He was very much surprised when he was informed that he had been told by registered post every week for many months, and that we had his signature to acknowledgment of our communication, and it was difficult to understand that he had not some knowledge of what was going on.
In view of the manifold duties which fall upon a Prime Minister, especially in those times, I am not foolish enough to believe that he can see everything that goes on, but still a matter such as this, with the possibility of a strike in the Police Service, was of sufficient importance to claim his attention for a few moments. However, when told what the trouble was, he said: "I think that things are bad." Almost immediately he agreed that there should be a substantial increase in pay, non-contributory pensions for widows, and no victimisation; and he agreed, and it was afterwards initialled by the Home Secretary and the President of the Union, that every man should have the right to join the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, without any fear of victimisation, provided—and I want to be quite fair to the Home Secretary on this point
—and so long as that organisation did not interfere with the discipline of the Service. I want to make it perfectly clear. At the moment that was signed, the Prime Minister said, "Well, so far as the recognition of the union is concerned, the War is still on, and this is not a matter which we can talk about now. We will talk about recognition after the War is over, but for the time being you shall have your committees. You say you have your union, and you have your branches already formed. Very well, go ahead with them and set up the committees on a basis to be agreed upon, and you can go ahead and there will be no interference with you." The last thing the Prime Minister said, before the men left was, "If anything like this occurs again, come along and let me know."
This is what happened: Immediately after the resumption of duty General Macready was transferred to New Scotland Yard from the War Office. Obviously a man with a military mind, he had not the slightest conception of civil police duty, but he was honest enough to say that he was there to do his job. I do not think that anyone who came into contact with him had anything whatever to say against him personally. I liked him as an officer and as a gentleman, but it was impossible for him to see the point of view of the civilian police officer. We mutually agreed to differ on nearly all subjects. His job was, he told us frankly, to bring the discipline of the Metropolitan Police up to the standard of a Guards regiment, and he said he was going to do it. He said he had found that the administration of the police was absolutely wrong and it would be years before it was put right, that many changes had to be made, and he did not know how we could have remedied the position in any other way than by the strike we had had—a very frank admission and a general acceptance of the position in which we found ourselves. But his duty was to smash the organisation that had brought to light the disgraceful affairs which existed.
If the Government in 1918 did not intend to recognise the Union after the War, it would have been far more honest to have said so; it would have been cleaner and more honourable to the men who did join that Union on the Prime Minister's
promise. It would have saved much suffering and humiliation if the Prime Minister had not deceived the ordinary common or garden policeman of that time. After all, deception is a wicked thing. Only the other day I read a speech made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs some time in 1909, not far from the East End of London, in which he said that deception is always a pretty contemptible device, but it is the meanest of all devices when it is practised on the poor. The right hon. Gentleman of 1909 evidently overlooked the poor policeman in 1918. It is a strange commentary upon the position that after that policy had been framed that was the last time that the then Prime Minister ever met the representatives of the men through their Union, although he had undertaken to see them at any time when any matter of this kind arose.
Since 1919 this is the first opportunity I have had of stating the men's point of view, and I hope that the House will be generous in the matter. One of the conditions of the recognition of the Union was the institution of Committees of a certain constitution. In that constitution, which was agreed upon by the Prime Minister and the Union representatives, there was a provision that the Commissioner should receive a deputation elected by the Executive Committee of the Board at any time. General Macready refused to receive a deputation, because he said that that deputation had been insubordinate in representing a certain point of view to him. We appealed to the Home Secretary. We were refused a hearing in the first place, despite the fact that it was a part of the constitution. Then the Home Secretary through the Commissioner said, "We consider that the Boards are quite unsatisfactory and that you must have a different kind of Board altogether." We immediately replied, "But that is not the settlement of 1918, which said that the Board should be on a certain basis. Now you say that you are going to change it. We want you to listen to us." We were refused a hearing again. We appealed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ignored us and positively refused to meet us. The matter was referred to the then Home Secretary, Mr. Shortt. He declined to meet the police on this question and the Commissioner forced the police in London to accept a new constitution.
What was the result? When nominations were asked for from the men, there were no nominations forthcoming, because the men refused to have anything to do with the new scheme. Therefore, the Commissioner authorised one or two of his own nominations to stand for election, and when the elections came round there were no men in the service who voted for the candidate except a mere handful. Practically the whole of the Metropolitan Police turned down the new scheme. After that the bombshell fell. The Home Secretary of the time introduced a new Bill, the Police Bill, which contained all the matter for the destruction of the organisation which secured a measure of justice for the police in 1918. The Home Secretary refused to discuss the matter with those who had been a party to the agreement of 1918. We appealed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to Paris. We wired to the Prime Minister. We had a deputation ready to meet him in Paris. He declined to have anything whatever to do with it, and when the Bill came before the House we had not an opportunity even of stating our point of view to the Government.
I remember that when the Desborough Committee was meeting I gave evidence, but no question was put to me with regard to the method of representation within the police service. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) will remember that the question of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers was not raised by the Committee for some time after the first witness had appeared. It would be extremely interesting to know why. I, who gave first evidence before that Committee, was not asked a question with regard to the composition of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, nor upon any method of representation. Although subsequent witnesses were asked all kinds of questions with regard to the organisation, that policy was not applied to me, the general secretary of the organisation. The whole thing savoured of a deliberate policy of withholding from all those associated with the organisation any opportunity of stating a case. I am not now appealing for myself, but for those men who, rightly or wrongly, went on strike. I know this is where some hon. Members will feel they cannot go as far
as I do. I would remind them when that Police Bill was before the House, no other channel was open to the service to bring before the Prime Minister the fact that the agreement of 1918 had been violated. A strike was decided upon. That is an ugly word, and it was an ugly situation, but, after all, what was the strike for? There was no question of pay or better conditions. It was merely for the preservation of an honourable principle; for the right which is inherent in every member of the community to meet with his fellows, in common association, for the purpose of representing their common point of view.
9.0 P.M.
Owing to many circumstances which I do not propose to elaborate, the strike was not a success from a numerical point of view. There was a great outcry in the Press that there were Bolshevist and German influences behind the strike, and a Member of this House asked whether any members of the executive were of alien parentage. I believe the question was asked in good faith. The reply of the Home Secretary of the time was that there were two men who had alien parents and one was of German parentage, their names being Thiel and Zollner. It is easy to inflame public opinion in these circumstances. It is easy to cry out "Bolshevist" and "German" and to raise stories of that kind, and it was particularly easy at the tail-end of the War to work up the imagination of people against these men, but the Home Secretary did not tell the House that Thiel and Zollner, who were born in this country, had served in one of His Majesty's regiments of Guards in the South African War and in the Great War with honour and distinction. The Home Secretary did not say that. It was a wicked and libellous impression which was allowed to go abroad. These men had no opportunity of choosing their parents, and if they ever had any German blood in their veins it had been eliminated by their British associations. But the libel went on and it affected every man who took part in that strike. Out of these 2,500 men, no fewer than 1,004 fought in the Great War, having an aggregate service among them of over 7,000 years; 92 of them were captains and lieutenants, nearly 400 were sergeant-majors, sergeants or corporals, 236 had special decorations,
while 1,428 other War medals were earned by these men. Over 25 per cent. of them—282 out of the 1,004—had been seriously wounded. All the executive members of the union were serving policemen, and the only two men who were not policemen were the organising secretary and myself. I had an honourable record in the Service and I only resigned at the request of policemen to take over the secretaryship of their organisation and to do my best for them. All the decisions of the Union were the decisions of the policemen themselves, and there were no outside influences of any kind behind that strike. After all, the crime that they committed, if crime it be, was the crime of fighting for a principle. We have all at some time or other struck some blow for a principle. We may be right or wrong; it may be a proper principle or an improper principle, but there are Members of this House and of another place who—it matters not whether they were right or wrong—in their desire for the protection of a principle which they held sacred, organised unconstitutional acts in 1913 in Northern Ireland. I do not condemn them for what they did, if, they were of opinion that it was the only correct thing to do. What was the difference in method between them and the men in this case. But were they refused reinstatement into public favour? Were they sent to beg for their livelihood and put into the position of common felons? No. They were rewarded, some with promotion to the peerage and some with Government rank. After all, an uneducated policeman, and one may use that term without being misunderstood—uneducated as compared with the people to whom I refer—is surely not going to be branded for the rest of his days and made a felon for something which he thought was right and which was done in an honourable and straightforward way. It may not have met the point of view of hon. Members, but I ask hon. Members to think of the long service of these men and of the fact that they believed in the word of the Prime Minister in 1918. Surely they were entitled to believe that it was a word to be trusted in and relied upon.
I may mention an interesting fact to hon. Members in that connection. During the Boer War, when there was much ado about nothing and efforts were being made
by certain gentlemen who are now Members of this House to cultivate public opinion against that war and to bring defeat to His Majesty's troops in the field, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went to speak in Birmingham. The opinion of the people of Birmingham was against the right hon. Gentleman at that time, and after attempting to address them in the Town Hall he was glad to don the uniform of a policeman in order to make good his escape. More interesting still is the history of the six-feet-four constable who assisted him and escorted him from the rear of that building and who afterwards became Sergeant Taylor of the Birmingham City Police. That man had 24 years' service, and in his simplicity, if you like, he believed that the Prime Minister, whom he had once escorted from the Birmingham Town Hall, would not go back on his word in 1918. Yet that man was one of the victims of the refusal to honour the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman; that man lost his pension and prospects, and Sergeant Taylor to-day with his wife and children is suffering untold privations despite his honourable record. It is because of those men and because I believe we have a case that I bring these matters forward. I am not arguing as to whether we were right or wrong in the action we took, but we have proved our claim to justice tempered with mercy. It sometimes happens that justice without mercy is more evil in its results than the justice meted out in brutal passion and it is the mercy of justice for which we ask.
We ask for the reconsideration of the whole position, and for allowances to be made for all the difficulties and the misunderstandings of the past. We have heard of one Syme since 1910. These men have fought together since 1919. I have endeavoured, in my own way, to keep them in the constitutional path. I have preached to them the gospel of political emancipation. I have told them the thing to do was to get to the Floor of the House of Commons and state our case in such a way that Members of the House would at least cause an inquiry to be made in order that proper justice might be done. Now the opportunity has arisen, and I want to prompt the mind of the Home Secretary to a communication which he received in February last from Sir Archibald Salvidge, K.B.E., who will be well known to my hon. Friends
opposite as the organising genius of the Conservative party in Liverpool. He was the one man who pitted the whole weight of the Conservative organisation against me during my by-election. Sir Archibald Salvidge, nevertheless, with all his political opposition to myself, and with all his condemnation of the police strike in Liverpool—where every policeman practically came out on strike, and where the people of Liverpool did suffer as a result of the strike—wrote this letter to the Home Secretary on 5th February, 1923:
Dear Sir,—On 5th April, 1922, the following resolution was adopted by the Liverpool City Council:
'That these members of the Liverpool Police Force who went out on strike in August, 1919, and who had completed 20 years' service should be recommended pension on a scale to be approved by the Secretary of State as and from the date on which they ceased to serve in the force.'
This resolution was duly conveyed to your predecessor, who, I understand, informed the Town Clerk that he did not see his way to take any steps to give effect to the terms thereof. Such a resolution could not have been carried had it not been for the votes of those who, whilst strongly disapproving of the action of the strikers, yet felt the punishment was too severe. This view I share, and I am of opinion that the full punishment meted out to them errs in severity and does not altogether fit the crime. Large numbers of the strikers had to their credit long periods of faithful and meritorious service in the force, and I am satisfied that had it not been for the glamour of agitators, they would not have taken the drastic step they did. Further, the period of time given by the Watch Committee to the strikers to return to duty or be dismissed was hardly sufficient, and I regard this as a point in their favour and mention it as a factor in the appeal I am making for some clemency to be shown to them.
By their ill-advised action, the strikers lost everything, even their contributions to the Superannuation Fund, which they had paid for years, and I am told that a policeman after a long period of service in the force is physically unfit to take up other forms of work involving great physical strength. As a consequence, large numbers of the strikers have been unable to find employment, with the further result that many of them are now in absolute want, whilst others have arrived at an age when it is hopeless to expect that they can earn their living.
As one who has taken a prominent part in the public life of Liverpool for more than 30 years, I respectfully ask your reconsideration of the resolution referred to herein, and I believe that if you can see
your way to advise some clemency, your action will remove a feeling existing that whilst punishment was right, the severity of it has resulted in injustice.
I again apologise for the time I have taken. I have tried to state the point of view that we have never yet been allowed to place before those who sit in judgment upon us. I believe the Government can do the right thing if they will. The honour and prestige of the Government are surely more to them than the question of upholding the old time tradition of one Government endorsing what a previous Government has done. During the War certain people of high social standing endeavoured to use our organisation for the purpose of defaming certain Members of His Majesty's Government. Knowing that we had access to certain information, they tempted us to betray our trust in order that they should become possessed of that information, and their prey at that time was a Member of the Government who is a right hon. Member of this House at the present time, to whom I have never yet spoken a word that we declined to do anything contrary to the interests of the Government or of himself at that time. We were honourable to a degree, and I believe that this Government will prefer to be honourable also, and whatever may have been said in regard to our tendencies in the past, if the Government can bring a measure of inquiry and take a referendum throughout the police service, they will acknowledge that the police service are at least the best judges as to whether their goodwill would go with the reinstatement of these men. I would go further, and say, that if a referendum were taken of the police service of this country to-day, as to whether it would be a popular thing or not to re-instate these men, I and my colleagues would stand or fall by the result of that referendum. It would answer the statement made by the late Prime Minister when he told the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that the opinion of the police force was against reinstatement, when he must have known it was a deliberate mis-statement. I appeal to the House and the Government to reconsider the whole position and endeavour to do the right thing, despite what they may consider is necessary for the purpose of precedent and upholding authority. Do not reply that discipline has to be considered. Justice and honour
are far more important than discipline. Let not yourselves be drawn into a continuation of the victimisation that has gone on in the past. I thank the House for its indulgence, and I hope the Government will give earnest consideration to our case.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member for Edgehill (Mr. Hayes) has made a very interesting speech, and I do not grudge him the time that he has occupied in making it, but I think it is incumbent upon me to reply to the main points which he has raised, because I know there are other hon. Members who want to deal with prisons and other subjects connected with this Debate. Therefore, I will say the few words that I have to say in reply to his two main contentions at once. He has had an opportunity for which he has been waiting for some time, and I am glad he has got it off his chest. I am not going to impeach the motives which actuated him in the action, which, I think, was entirely mistaken, but I am entitled to say that I think he was wrong in the action he took at that time, and that he is now defending himself for having taken. I have not time to go into all the details of the long and painful story of the police strike, but I will say at once that I am extremely sorry for some of those who are the victims of the strike of 1919. I am very sorry that they took the bad advice which was given to them. Their case has been fully considered, and their grievances, so far as the Government of that time understood them, were being dealt with by a Committee. I think they understood that it was quite clear that the Police Union could not be allowed if it was going to be used for the purposes of a strike, and I think they understood that if they did strike the consequences would be, what they have been, final and irrevocable dismissal from the force. That applies not only to them, but also to the prison officials. They knew what would happen, and they deliberately took the action which they did take, and It would be absolutely impossible to maintain discipline, in a force in which discipline is most necessary for the safety of the public in this country, if we admitted that men who thought it was right to strike at a time like that were tit to remain in the police force. I think it right that I should at once make that point quite clear. I am sorry that they took that action, and still more sorry for
those who took it on the advice of other people, without thinking out the matter for themselves. They knew what they were doing, and I am afraid they must take the consequences.
There are two or three minor questions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There was one concerning the conditions of service and the 2½ per cent. reduction. That is only for the moment, and will be reconsidered when this year is over. Perhaps the most important minor question he raised was the question of the conveyance of prisoners. I think the regulations are as humane as they can be, but there have been one or two cases where I think some unwisdom has been shown, and where there has been an unnecessary use of the handcuffs. The question must always be considered of the force that is conducting prisoners, and the risk of escape. There are one or two regulations which I think the House might like to know. Women prisoners are always escorted by women officers, and sometimes by men in plain clothes told off to assist them if desirable. As regards men, in the case of unconvicted prisoners it is left to the prison governor as to whether handcuffs should or should not be used In some cases if the prisoner is young, and of a dangerous type, he is handcuffed. In the majority of cases handcuffs are unnecessary. In regard to convicted prisoners, these are always handcuffed, and in cases where there is a large party travelling together the prisoners are linked together with a light chain: sometimes even then they escape. It is unnecessary to state that every care is taken to see that no unnecessary severity is used, but we must take every precaution that they should not escape.
The main point the hon. Gentleman raised was the case of ex-Inspector Syme. I must deal with that at some length, though I hope I shall not detain the Committee too long. However, before I come to that, let me say I have been asked in case of the police strikers to upset the decision of my predecessor.

Mr. HAYES: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman for the reinstatement of these men, but to institute an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That might give rise to ill-founded hopes. I do not feel that at the moment I can agree to that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider giving these men back their superannuation money? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a man or woman may be the biggest scoundrel possible, and be found guilty of any offence, yet they are given back the money they have paid into a superannuation fund. Surely that is a matter which might be gone into?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know about that. As to a public inquiry, if the hon. Member asks me to reverse the decision of my predecessor, I am afraid I cannot. As to the case of ex-Inspector Syme, he has asked me to reverse the whole row of my predecessors at the Home Office.

Mr. HAYES: The whole lot?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, I thought there was less likelihood of the whole lot being wrong than one being wrong. Here again, before I go into the case, I must say frankly, that I am extremely sorry for this case, and am extremely sorry that Syme has thought fit to ruin his own case—if he had one at all—by the way he has conducted himself. He ought to have considered other people as well as himself. He has chosen to embark on a campaign of abuse of a large number of officials, and others connected with the police force. If he wants to stand as a wise man he should be a little more careful of the way he is acting.
Let me give a summary of the case. It began in 1909, when Lord Gladstone, as he now is, was the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has given his account of the story. I think he has rather exaggerated some points and minimised others. At the time I refer to, there was friction between Syme and his superior officers at Gerald Road Police Station. After an inquiry by one of the chief constables it was decided to transfer him to another station. Syme then began a series of defamatory charges against the superior officers who had caused his transfer. These charges were investigated by a discipline board in December, 1909. The board directed his reduction from the rank of inspector to that of station sergeant, and his removal to another subdivision. He appealed against the decision to the Commissioner, Sir Edward Henry. The transference was a
perfectly reasonable thing. He was not getting on well with the heads, and it was better for them both, assuming they were wise men, seeing they were not getting on well together, that they should be removed from each other. Syme had no right to resent that. Sir Edward Henry confirmed the decision of the board in a considered judgment, of which a copy was presented to Parliament in 1911. This decision was approved by Lord Gladstone. Syme refused to abide by the decision, and claimed the right to appeal to Parliament. He carried on a regular agitation through circular letters to Members, articles in the newspapers, etc., and this conduct could not be allowed by a member of a disciplined force. He was dismissed from the Service.
When Mr. Churchill came to the Home Office in 1910, Syme appealed to him and asked to see him. Mr. Churchill had a prolonged interview with him. The hon. Member did not tell us that when Mr. Churchill offered to reinstate him in the lower position which he held on leaving the Service, he entirely endorsed the judgment of the Commissioner in regard to him. Having been offered an opportunity to return to the lower rank which he had when he left the Service, he declined to accept the position, and then he began using threats against Mr. Churchill, and a great many other people concerned with the case. He also threatened the King, though the hon. Gentleman says he does not believe he would ever have carried his threat out, and I do not suppose he would. If the Leader of the Opposition were here he would remember that Syme sent him a letter threatening to use very violent and murderous action against him.
During the next three years—1910, 1911 and 1912—he was constantly before the Courts on charges of this kind. In 1914, he published a pamphlet entitled, "Fighting Officialdom: A three years' fight against Home Office persecution." For this, a prosecution for criminal libel was brought against him, so that the whole of his charges might be properly investigated in a court of justice. He had always been saying that there were a lot of charges which he wished to make against people which ought to be investigated, and this gave him the opportunity. The case was tried by Judge and
jury for six days. Syme filed a plea of justification. He was unable to prove any of his charges, and it was shown that his allegations were false. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Court confirmed the decision. Mr. Justice Bankes, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said he was astonished at the marvellous patience shown by the Judge and the jury. He was satisfied that they fully grasped every point made by the appellant that could tell in his favour. The learned Judge had not stopped any cross-examination on a point which might be material, and there was nothing on which to found the suggestion that there had been misdirection. He came to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed. So the appeal was dismissed.
During the War, Syme was on several occasions prosecuted for making statements calculated to interfere with recruiting, and some time in last year he was serving two partly concurrent terms, each of three months' imprisonment, in default of finding sureties; the earlier having been passed in November, 1921. From that he went on to hunger-striking, as the hon. Gentleman knows—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It would be all right if you all went on hunger strike.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be very hot weather in which to do it. By reason of his refusal to take food, he had several times been released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for III-health) Act, 1913, since on medical grounds he could not be artificially fed. He has since been charged on five further occasions with collecting money in the Park, before it was decided, in February, 1923, by me, to recommend the remission of his outstanding sentences, he having been temporarily released 17 times since November, 1921. He had been released 17 times under what is called the "Cat and Mouse Act," and I hoped that if the sentences were remitted he would perhaps give up the policy which he had adopted up to that time. Since the remission of his sentence he has once been fined for causing an obstruction, and he has written to me constantly, while most hon. Members of the House have received a great number of postcards, asking that something should be done for him.
I think the Committee will see how utterly impossible it is for the Home Office to do anything while he persists in this attitude. What does it mean? Here is a man who considers himself aggrieved, who has had every chance. He has had discipline boards, and has had appeals considered; and although no doubt he thinks he is unjustly treated, he has had every chance which any man in the force could have. The first case goes against him, and he thinks; by adopting this course of bringing charge against other people in the police force, that he will get his own case reconsidered, and some reinstatement. How can a man think that that is the right course to pursue? In the last few months he has brought charges against officials in the police force. He will not put them in writing now. I am perfectly ready to investigate them, and if he puts them in writing he shall have the same opportunity as he had before of proving them, but that is not the way to reintate himself. I ask the Committee, how can anybody in the position of the Commissioner of Police reinstate a man who persists in action of that kind? It means that if there is anything with which he is dissatisfied in the discipline of the force, he has only got to go about accusing everybody of malpractices and creating great dissatisfaction against the honourable force of police of which, as the hon. Gentleman said, we are all very proud, asking that I, somehow or other, in order to reinstate him, should have a sort of general fishing inquiry, in the hope that I should drag up some mud or scandal in the course of it which would damage some of the officials whose action at the head of the police force he resents.

Mr. MARCH: You would probably get the right fish.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: How would any hon. Gentleman in this Committee like to have an inquiry made into his whole life and whole conduct by a fishing committee, in the hope that some scandal would be raked up which would justify a slander which some other person had chosen to make?

Mr. HAYES: Syme's position is this. He feels he has been unjustly treated, and he is endeavouring to prove that the system which unjustly treated him is not
acting fairly in many other cases. It is merely in the endeavour to prove his point that he is compelled to do this. It must be remembered that before he was dismissed he drew attention to many cases, and I could draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to many more.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am perfectly ready to consider any specific case that could be brought. I always have immediately investigated any specific case that has been brought, but I am not going to believe that the whole of the police force, or any section of it, are guilty of malpractices just because Syme, because he has a grievance, chooses to say so.

Mr. HAYES: I have not said so.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be grossly unfair to those who act in the police force if I allowed anybody to think I was going to be influenced, by that sort of accusation, into allowing their conduct to be inquired into by Syme, who would not bring openly a specific charge against them. Any specific charge they would be only too glad to have considered, and so would I, but I am not prepared to have an open fishing inquiry in the hope that something may be found to justify these accusations that have been made. I cannot understand how ex-Inspector Syme thinks that action of that sort can do his case any good. Let him desist from his accusations—

Mr. HAYES: Will you have an Inquiry Board, then?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He has chosen to take this line; he must take the consequences. I am very sorry for him. He is one of those men who has got a sort of obsession that he is the only righteous man in the whole of the police force, and that everybody else, or a great many of them, are guilty of bad practices. It is an unfortunate obsession. We all of us, I suppose, in the course of our lives, have felt that we have been unjustly treated at some time or another, and we have most of us learned to put up with it, and make the best of it. Really the members of this Committee will see how utterly impossible it is for me to take the course suggested, much as I should like to get it settled and see that the rest of this man's life was left in a peaceful and happy state. I am certain hon. Members will see that it is utterly impossible for
me to take the action I have been asked to take if I am to maintain and defend those in the position of conducting the work of the police force in London.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Before mentioning one or two other subjects, should like to say that I am not impressed, I am sorry to say, by what the Home Secretary has said about ex-Inspector Syme. For many years I have followed this case, but if the present Home Secretary were to tell me that if he had looked into the initial circumstances of ex-Inspector Syme's case, and was satisfied that no injustice had been done, I should unreservedly accept his finding. If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for reminding him, when earlier asked if he could not do this or that in reference to a previous note, he said he had so much to do to enable him to catch up the arrears of his work that he would be glad if the House were adjourned for several months. That is just my point. If my right hon. Friend, in whom the whole House has absolute confidence, could state that he had, with a fresh mind, looked into the initial circumstances of this case—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have done so.

Sir J. REMNANT: Then I have nothing more to say. But up to now I did not think he had examined the circumstances of ex-Inspector Syme's case, with whom I have the greatest sympathy; and in spite of all this man has done since his degradation and dismissal, we must feel sympathy for him, and I still have in my mind a feeling that he was unjustly treated.
With regard to the strikers, that is a case which has agitated the whole police force very much. Of course they ought not to strike, and the world was astonished when they did. I will go further, and say that London was ashamed of the police on the day they struck. The police were ashamed of themselves, and nobody regrets that strike more than the police themselves. On the other hand, why did they strike? There can be no two opinions that they had just cause for very serious complaint, and it was only when driven to desperation, and in the belief that attention was not being given to their very hard case, that they took the step they did, and struck in order
to bring their case prominently before the public.
I want to keep this question entirely free from politics. The conditions under which the police work and live should be known and appreciated by all those who have to deal with this very important body of men. When you see at your very door men who were within a short time of being able to receive their pensions absolutely dismissed and cast adrift, for complaints which were admitted by the Government as just, and on the other hand, people who have been convicted of murder and outrage subsequently pardoned and even honoured for political purposes, it strikes me that this treatment is not in keeping with the British idea of fair play. Nobody wants to excuse the original offence, but we cannot deny that these men have suffered very seriously for their sins in the past. When we are trying to get over the effects or the War and start afresh, it seems to me that we have an opportunity now to try and remove some of those grievances which are causing unrest in the police force.
I want now to appeal to the Home Secretary for some information as to what he proposes to do with the poor old pre-September, 1918, police pensioners' widows. I cannot help thinking that if economics in the police forces throughout the country were made, this small difficulty, at all events, could be got over. Why should the widows of the men who because they were not actually serving on the 1st September, 1918, and who had never struck, but were always loyal to their duties, be excluded from their small pension, because one of the conditions of the strike settlement was that the widows of the men who were then serving should receive a pension? Why should there be this distinction? When I brought this matter up the last time, I was told that it would cost too much. The then Home Secretary gave me first one large figure one day, and a smaller one the next day, and to this day nobody can say the number of widows who would be entitled to receive this pension. An interesting return was given in 1918 showed the number of pensions under 20s., and some as low as 9s. So far as I can make out from that return there would be, at the outside, not more than 3,000 or 4,000 of these police pensioners' widows who would be entitled to this
small pension, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to let us know if something can be done to remedy this undoubted grievance. These poor old souls, many of whom are in the workhouses, should be allowed this small pension of £30 a year, to alleviate their sufferings in their old age.
Then we have had a sort of half promise from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that some provision is going to be made for increasing all pre-War pensions. I would like to get something from the Home Secretary on that point, and may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to see that we shall not be put under the same disability as we were on a previous occasion, when we were told by the then Solicitor-General, on moving an Amendment to substitute the word "shall" for "may," that the alteration was quite unnecessary, that the word "may" meant "shall," and if it were used all would be well in the best of possible worlds. We have found that it is not so. The Solicitor-General got our Amendment withdrawn, I will not say under false pretences, for that might be interpreted in a disagreeable way, but he got it withdrawn under conditions which had they been fully realised would not have led to the withdrawal of the Amendment. We have had a most interesting return got out which shows how unwise it is to leave these matters to the sole discretion of the local authorities. Several of them have said that this increase is most unnecessary, that the police are a well-paid force, and ought to have made provision for their own old age. I think those who made that assertion would be the first to complain if they were in the same position as the police. The House may be interested to know that four police authorities in the Kingdom absolutely refused to give any increase whatever, and that 90 police authorities in the country failed to carry out what this House intended they should do, in order to relieve serious cases of pensioners who were not able to make both ends meet. That is the distinct result of trusting to opinions, instead of having the matter laid down in plain words. I trust the Home Secretary, when he deals with this question again, will see that, if in the future the House decide on a definite policy, we shall have the word "shall" used in the Act, instead of
"may," and not leave it to the discretion of local authorities who are always so anxious to reduce the rates, and so make these poor fellows suffer in the matter of pension.
The Police Federation has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. There are several points I would like to raise, but I am going to bring only one before the attention of the Home Secretary this evening. It is this, that under the rules laid down secretaries of the various committees are appointed, and have to serve for a year. These men are selected for their fitness for a difficult position, and they have to give a great deal of time to the work they do for the Federation. In many cases the chief constable and the local authorities are annoyed became they are constantly away from their police duties, and are drawing pay at the same time. Could not the Home Secretary arrange that, while these men are serving in these positions—there cannot be many of them—they should be given leave on full pay for the whole of the year, and that the cost shall be borne, not out of the local police fund, but by the State. It would get rid of the annoyance caused to their chief officers, and enable them to devote the whole of their time to Federation work, without hindrance.
The hon. Member opposite said it was quite true that when the Committee was appointed in 1919, it urged that, except in some very exceptional cases, the plums of police force appointments should be open to men who have worked their way up from the bottom. It was stated that 60 chief constables have been appointed from outside without experience of police work. That, I think, was before the Committee in question was appointed. No appointment can now be made unless it has the direct sanction of the Home Secretary, but since the recommendation of the Committee was made, a very insidious plan has been introduced of evading it. Assistant and Deputy-chief constables have been apointed from outside for the express purpose of being made chief constables when the vacancy arises. I am sure the House does not desire to see that done, and would wish that a man who during his whole service in the force has proved himself a highly efficient officer should have the first claim to the chief post when it becomes vacant. The Home Secretary's atention might very
usefully be devoted to putting an end to the practice of bringing outsiders into the force, with the sole view of appointing them to the higher positions at the expense of men who really deserve those positions
I hope the Home Secretary will at once put an end to the rumours which are being spread about of an alteration in the standard pay of the force, which was decided upon after so much laborious inquiry. The scale of pay was fixed as one suitable for men who had to do special and exceptional work. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Does my hon. Friend who cries "No" really know what these men have to do, and the circumstances under which they perform their work? Does he know, for instance, that the men on night duty have to make special arrangements with their families, so that they may be provided with food during the night? Does he know half the difficulties under which these men have to work? All I can say is that, knowing him as I do, I am sure if he were aware of the facts, he would be the first to say that these men deserve the pay they get, and he would add "more power to them, may they never have it taken away from them."
I come now to my last point. We hear a good deal about economies in various directions, but after all very little is done. We do not want to have to call for economy from the lower ranks if we do not call for it from the higher ranks, and we do not need to call for economy from anyone if the unnecessary parts of the force are removed. I asked a question the other day as to the appointment of a chief constable in a very small force, and there are forces which go down as low as nine. What does a force of nine want with a chief constable, a superintendent, a sergeant, and so on? In the county of Berkshire, where I now live, there are no fewer than three separate forces, with three chief constables and the extra officers. One force numbers 23, another 70, and then there is the big county force. The county police headquarters are within a stone's throw of the borough police headquarters in Reading. What on earth is the necessity for three chief constables in the county of Berkshire? The, county force could do the work for Reading just as well as Reading can itself, and in that larger force there is a
greater chance for the men themselves to get promotion, and for greater efficiency in the whole force. I believe that if we can get over the idea of a locality sticking up for its own local police force simply because it is its own force, and thinking that, no one can do it as well, and if we put our heads together with common sense and the intention to examine whether we can effect economies, economies can be made, and many other improvements in connection with the police Forces, which require money, can be carried out without any extra expense at all to the taxpayers of the country.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: It seems to me that the Home Secretary, in dealing with the case of ex-Inspector Syme, has made no suggestion whatever as to what Syme ought to have done in the first instance, or what any other man in a lower position is to do when he knows that serious irregularities are going on in the Police Force. There is nothing so far as Regulations or anything else is concerned to provide protection for the men, of whom there are large numbers in the police forces throughout the country, who really desire to see a thoroughly clean and straight police force. I am speaking as one who was for 17 years a member of a watch committee, and for two years was the chairman, and I had the extremely disagreeable task of having to ask one chief constable to resign and of having to suspend a number of Superior officers and clear up a very disagreeable mess that there was at that time. That was some few years ago, but there has been, unfortunately, such an atmosphere as has prevented the continuance of the work that we attempted to do at that time.
10.0 P.M.
The Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for the year 1922 shows that the number of probationary appointments was 1,126, and that 27 per cent. resigned during the probationary period. The number of appointments, in consequence of the need for economy, is less than one-third of what it was in the previous year, and, during a time of unexampled unemployment, 27 per cent. of the small number who were appointed did not stop on after the probationary period. The suggestion is made that there should be a closer inquiry into the antecedents of those who are appointed, and that one police force does not sufficiently help
another in this matter. I would point out that, in a force in which, in addition to its pay, housing accommodation, clothing, and ultimately a pension is provided, the position is that not more than 10 per cent. of those who enter the force ultimately arrive at the pensionable age. In the year 1913, in the Sheffield force, only 14 per cent. of the whole force had over 20 years' service, another 20 per cent. had 15 years' service, and another 10 per cent. 10 years' service, so that to a very large extent the force was entirely a young force. These figures with regard to resignations indicate that there is something seriously wrong either in regard to the method of recruiting or in some other direction. I venture to think that one of the causes is that men are not prepared to submit to a certain amount of that tyranny which undoubtedly exists, and that many who really want to do the right thing, and who realise what the police force should be, do not receive the encouragement that they should receive from their superior officers. The Home Secretary, in his reply, said that certain things could not be allowed in a disciplined force. I am going to read a letter which was addressed to the members of the City Council by a man in the Civil Service. He says:
During my service at the front, my wife committed adultery. She subsequently made a confession, implicating a Sheffield police sergeant. I availed myself of the law for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, and cited the police sergeant as corespondent. After long delays, the case was heard in the High Courts, but, owing to the respondent failing to put in an appearance, it was not possible to compel the co-respondent to enter the witness-box. I was, therefore, deprived of an opportunity of proving my case against this man. The Court, however, granted me a decree, the costs of which, owing to the respondent having failed to attend Court, will have to be borne by me. Having been deprived of an opportunity in the High Courts to deal with the conduct of the police sergeant, I submitted as soon as practicable a complaint to the chief constable of the sergeant's conduct. In this I was joined by my wife, who, as a consequence of her immoral relationship with the sergeant, had since given birth to a male child, in respect of which the sergeant does not contribute. The whole of the facts in this case have been submitted both to the chief constable and to the chairman of the Watch Committee. The chief constable states that he has no power to compel the sergeant to attend to answer the complaint—as a matter of fact the sergeant refused to attend the chief constable's office to allow the complaint to
be investigated—and the Watch Committee state they are unable to take any action in the matter, having regard to all the facts and circumstances within their knowledge.
The following is a sworn affidavit by the sister of this man:
In February, 1916, whilst my brother was away on active service, I went to stay with his wife. I stayed with her six weeks. During my visit I noticed that Thomas Jones was on very friendly terms with my sister-in-law. He visited the house frequently and stayed to supper on several occasions. He often called at the house at about 11 o'clock when on duty and used to tap at the kitchen window, his excuse being to ask if we were all right. At other times he was in the habit of showing his lamp up and down the bedroom window in the early hours of the morning when returning home, and my sister-in-law used to leave the curtains undrawn and get up and go to the window. My sister-in-law's conversation on that visit was continually about Jones; she told me he did not sleep with his wife, and I remonstrated with her upon her conversation and familiarity with him in the absence of her husband on active service.
That man is still in the Sheffield Police Force. The Chief Constable declines to take any action with regard to him. Is it right that in any police force there should be a man continuing there as sergeant, or anything else, against whom charges of this character can be brought? I have a very large number of other cases of one sort or another, with which I will not detain the House, which show the complete want of appreciation as to how a real, commonsense police force should be run, not by those at the bottom but by those at the top.

Viscountess ASTOR: Before bringing up the question of the women police, I would like to urge the Home Secretary to consider the case of those poor women and their pensions, mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). After all, their husbands, when serving as policemen, were grossly underpaid, and it would be a kind appreciation of the services of men who were underpaid. I do hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will take into consideration the case of those women. Then there is the case of the warders, who are to be turned out of their homes. The Home Secretary has given them an extension to the 30th September. I know, if it be possible, he will extend that date.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It was a clear understanding that there would be no further extension.

Viscountess ASTOR: In that case I will only say that I take an interest in these women. I want now to raise the question of the women police. I do not know whether this present House understands why women police were started. Long before 1914 many social workers pressed for the appointment of women police, but it was only in 1914 that women got their chance, and had the opportunity to show how valuable their services could be. In that year a certain social organisation got these women patrols. They were so valuable, and the police authorities throughout the Kingdom welcomed them so much, that in 1916 Sir Edward Henry, who was then Chief Commissioner of Police, and had given them support, looked into the work of these women, and appointed a few to certain special duties in the Metropolitan Police. Then towards the end of 1918, Sir Nevil Macready, his successor, was at once approached by representatives of practically every religious and social organisation in London to make contributions to these women police, and it was on the record of their splendid work that Sir Nevil Macready decided to give them a chance. One hon. Member said that Sir Nevil had no notion of civic administration. Well, he had a very good sense of moral administration. After looking into the question of prostitution, he said he wanted to put the whole question into the hands of women police. That is no reflection on the men, but he realised that this question was a very difficult one for a man to deal with, and in some cases it was unfair to ask young policemen to deal with it, and Sir Nevil said he intended to put it in the hands of women police if he had the chance.
I may say that the primary duties of the Women Police Patrol consisted in dealing with women and children, ill, destitute and homeless, and those who had been the victims of sexual offences, or were believed to be drifting towards an immoral life. The women did splendid work. There were 100 women properly organised in 1918–19, and in 1920 their work was investigated by a Departmental Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, and all the other members of which were not social enthusiasts. We had many
Unionists Members who knew nothing about women police until then, and they brought a perfectly unprejudiced mind to bear on the case. Strong evidence in support of the women police was brought forward. We had the evidence of Sir Nevil Macready, Sir Leonard Dunning, and chief constables and social workers, and the Committee unanimously reported that in thickly populated areas, where offences against the law relating to women and children are not infrequent, there was not only scope, but urgent need, for the employment of women police, and they also said that the women should be specially qualified, highly trained and well paid. Then came along the anti-waste campaign, started mostly by people who had done very well out of the War. This very dangerous anti-waste campaign began, and then we got the Geddes Committee, which may have had its uses, but if we had listened to them entirely we should have had very little Navy and very little education, and they tried to do away entirely with the women police. I asked the late Home Secretary, who, I rejoice, is no longer Home Secretary, what evidence that Committee had, and the only evidence the Geddes Committee had on this very important question was from the Home Secretary and Scotland Yard. This is what they said:
Women Police. Their powers are very limited, and their utility, on the police evidence submitted to us, was negligible.
Why were their powers limited? Because the late Home Secretary absolutely refused to give them the power of arrest; and as to their utility, I should like to ask the Horse what they think of these figures. I am going to deal with round figures. There were nearly 2,000 persons cautioned by these women police for acts of indecency in parks and public places, and these people really should have been arrested, but, owing to the late Home Secretary not giving them the power of arrest, they were only cautioned. Then there were nearly 3,000 persons cautioned for unseemly behaviour in parks, and 2,700 young girls were cautioned for loitering in the streets, and advised as to the danger of doing so. A 1,000 girls passed into homes and hospitals, and 6,400 respectable girls and women stranded at night were found shelter. The Geddes Committee said their utility was negligible. It may have seemed so from the business point of view, but
it is a short-sighted view to mice. On these slender and most unfair grounds the Geddes Committee recommended turning down the women police. Disbandment began and was carried out rapidly, beginning with the most experienced. There was an uproar in the country and the Government decided to retain a nucleus of 20. They were not the best because the highly trained women had been dismissed at once. When the present Home Secretary took office we were very hopeful that this nucleus would be gradually increased, and I think it, will. He began by giving them the power of arrest, but they are really of very little value. They are almost an eyewash for those who do not look into it thoroughly. I am certain the Home Secretary, when he has time, will see as well as we do. They are at present a total force of 20, which means, what with annual and sick leave, that there are only 10 women on duty at a time for the whole of London. The women are allotted to certain stations, and are not interchangeable. Three women may be on duty at one station, and at another all may be absent. They are not properly organised and, being so small a number, are not really efficient for the job they are out to do. The Home Secretary said women prisoners are escorted by women officers. They are escorted by policemen's wives. We want the work that is supposed to be done by women police to be done by trained and qualified women police. The late Home Secretary said it was no use having them trained. After all, the policemen's wives can do it. The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) and I pointed out that policemen did not marry their wives with a view to their escorting prisoners, but very much for the same reason that other people did, and it was no argument to say that a policeman's wife would be qualified to travel with prisoners.
The most alarming thing of all is that there is practically no women patrolling going on at Hampstead Heath, Clapham, Wimbledon and Putney Commons, and yet it has been proved that this patrolling is the greatest preventative of improper conduct and criminal interference with children. We have had a most moving and convincing speech from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant). One of the quickest and surest
ways of dealing with assaults on children is patrolling the parks, commons and heaths. It is almost better not to have parks unless you have them properly patrolled. You cannot blame the children. I could not really go into details of some of the terrible things that happen in the parks and heaths. I know of cases of indecent exposure brought up by women teachers at various schools in London, and there was no possible way of getting them until they put on women police, not in uniform, when they were soon found out The question of child assault is a matter that we must think seriously about. It is a terrible thing, and if there is any way in which we can prevent it, it is our bounden duty to do it. Only a very small percentage of the women police are told off to take statements from little girls who are the victims of these offences. They are taken by two ladies who are allotted for this work for the whole of the London district. The taking of a statement from a child is very important. The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) told of a case to-day where a child had been assaulted, but when they got her into court she got so mixed and flurried that she could not tell her story. It is important not only from the point of view of capturing the man, but from the point of view of getting hold of the child and treating it in a proper way by highly trained women, who know how best to get the thing out of the child's mind. The best man in the world could not do it. There are certain things that only a woman can do. That is no reflection upon a man.
Dealing with the mind of a child who has come through this horrible experience is a very difficult matter. It is not every woman that can do it. Only the highly trained and qualified woman can do it. These women help to explain matters to the child, and they know how best and how quickly to get the thing out of the child's mind. From that point of view it is important, and from the point of view of catching the offender it is very important. There is no man who would want any of there men to get off. The whole future of these children sometimes depends on how they are handled at this time. I spoke to the head of a home which deals with unfortunate girls, and she said, and it is borne out by the
evidence of social workers, that a great number of the girls who go wrong between the ages of 14 and 16 are girls who have been the victims of criminal assault in their childhood. If you can get hold of them soon enough and get the whole thing out of the child's mind, you are doing a service to the State, and probably preventing the girl from going wrong later.
I hope the Home Secretary will re-read the Report of the Committee set up by his own Department. It was proved that to keep up a very efficient women police force only amounted to £18,000 for the whole of London. Therefore, it was not a question really of economy in getting rid of them. We have proved the value of the preventive work done by the women police. Five hundred girls weekly went to these women police and asked for advice. There was a great outcry some time ago about a horrible disease. If these unfortunate girls can be provided with quick treatment and proper treatment it would be not only a saving to themselves, but a saving to the whole community. They would not think of going to ask for advice from a man policeman, and you cannot blame them. They went for advice to the women police, and we have evidence of hundreds being saved and got hold of in time. I believe the Home Secretary will bring a perfectly fair mind to bear on this subject. It is a moral question, to which the country, more and more, will awaken, because women are going to see whether they cannot prevent immorality. We are not so stupid as not to know that there is a good deal of immorality that goes on that no law can stop. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vested interest!"] There is immorality in all classes, and no law can stop it. I wish immorality were confined to one class, because we could kill out that class and get on. We do know that if we only look after our child life and only take proper steps—this women police is one of them—we can save children, and in saving children we can save men and save thousands of lives, and perhaps save many girls from the saddest of all callings.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Police administration has been the principal subject of debate this evening, but I only rise for the purpose of asking two questions to which I hope I may get a favourable
reply. The whole tenour of our debate is that the police are exceedingly useful to the community, probably at least as useful as the soldier and the sailor. The policemen are protecting the community, and that being so I want to suggest that the policeman who is wounded in protecting the community should be treated as well as the soldier or the sailor who is wounded when protecting the country. May I give an example of what I mean? Some years ago a policeman was seriously injured as the result of being attacked while he was endeavouring to arrest some burglars in the South-East part of London. He was injured so seriously that he was pensioned off with the maximum amount of £26 a year. That constable, within three years, had received the Royal Humane Society's certificate for saving life in water; the Royal Humane Society's certificate for saving life from fire, a special award for assisting other police, and a special award for stopping runaway horses.
I have not risen to suggest that his pension is entirely inadequate for the services which he rendered to the community. I understand that the Home Secretary intends to introduce legislation to deal with pre War pensions. What I want to suggest is a more minor matter than that. A constable who has been discharged on a pension of £26 a year has to pay Income Tax on that pension. In the list of reliefs for Income Tax payers it is stated in paragraph (2):
Wounds, disablement and disability pensions granted on account of military etc. services are exempt from Income Tax.
I would ask the Home Secretary if it would not be possible to interpret that Clause as including police service. It does seem to me regrettable—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that does not come in here. It would involve an Amendment to the Finance Bill, but the hon Member has made his point before I intervened.

Mr. MORRISON: I hope that the Home Secretary will take the initiative in having this Amendment made in the Finance Bill next year. The second matter to which I wish to refer is one which I endeavoured to raise on a previous occasion by question and answer in this House. Again I will give an exact illustration. On a bank holiday night in
London—most of us know what that is—a London General Omnibus driver driving an omnibus through the London streets found at one stopping place from 150 to 200 people collected. They endeavoured to get on the omnibus, and the driver called out to the crowd, "I am full up!" Immediately somebody in the crowd, probably as a bank holiday joke, not intending any harm, called out to the driver, "You are drunk!" Several of his friends took up the cry, and the cry was raised, "The driver is drunk!" Some one rushed into a police station and told the sergeant in charge that the driver was drunk and fighting with a passenger. The police-sergeant came down and the omnibus driver, who had not left his seat, was arrested. Charged at the Police Court next morning, he was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for driving an omnibus while in a state of intoxication. The driver, only then realising the seriousness of the position he was in, lodged an appeal, but over eight weeks passed before the appeal was heard. The appeal was upheld by the Judge, who said the case ought never to have been brought, told the driver he was discharged without a stain on his character, that he was entirely sober, and that he had committed no offence
The point is this: During the whole of that time the man had not been free to carry on his occupation and he had lost nearly £40 in wages I asked the Attorney-General the other day whether legislation would be required. The reply of the Attorney-General showed me that possibly fresh legislation would not meet the point. Through no fault of his own this man lost over £40 in wages. The Judge, in upholding his appeal, gave costs against the police. The police entered the costs as merely the costs of one day's appeal. I suggest that the Home Secretary should, if possible, have some fund available to help cases like this. I would not suggest compensation, but the payment of the man's out-of-pocket expenses. That is a fair proposition. The Attorney-General said that if legislation was introduced to deal with the matter the trouble would be that very often the person who was discharged was guilty, although it had been impossible to prove his guilt, and that such cases might lead to what he called whacking damages. I do not suggest anything of that sort, but,
if it is at all possible, I think the Home Secretary ought to have some sort of fund from which money could be paid to a man in the case of a wrongful charge.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The question has been raised of the policeman who is incapacitated from duty, and is called upon to pay Income Tax upon his pension. With all the good will in the world, I am afraid that we cannot discuss the question of not deducting Income Tax from police pensions, because that would clearly require legislation, and I would be out of order if I dealt with it now. With regard to the pensions of the police, I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite realises the very satisfactory position in which the police are now when they are incapacitated from duty. Every constable who is incapacitated by injury while on duty, even if accidental, is entitled to a pension for life on a scale which has been fixed by the Police Pensions Act. Take cases of total incapacity. The pensions vary, according to the period of service, from three-quarters to full pay for non-accidental injury, and from one-half to two-thirds pay for accidental injury. If you take partial incapacity, the pension varies according to the degree of disablement. For non-accidental injury the least pension he can get is one-third of his pay, if he has only just joined, and he gets two-thirds of his pay if he has had long service. If the disablement is accidental the absolute minimum is one-sixth of his pay and the maximum two-thirds of his pay. This compares very favourably with any other Service.
In regard to the second point, that of the Evan-Morris case, I am afraid I cannot give very much satisfaction here. As a matter of fact the money was paid by the police. This man did not have to pay any costs for the action at all. When a question was put to the Attorney-General some time ago he made it perfectly clear that in the case of malicious prosecution the man would have his civil rights to bring an action if he were improperly and maliciously prosecuted. After all, this case is not on any different ground from any other case, or anyone else, where a charge is brought in good faith and dismissed on appeal. It is not only this particular case, but anybody might have suffered in the same way.

Mr. MORRISON: The point is that the man was suspended from his employment and not allowed to take work with the omnibus company or to continue his occupation, and therefore his livelihood is gone.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I quite agree that it is a hard case. I have every sympathy with Evan-Morris. I do not think we can differentiate this from any other case, where a man happens to win his appeal, but with a loss of money, the loss of wages, and the loss of employment. If you want really to provide him with a fund of the kind referred to, it will certainly require registration. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some other fund, but I am afraid there is no other fund at the disposal of the Home Office. Therefore, under the circumstances, nothing can be done unless by voluntary effort on the part of his friends.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to reinforce the appeal made to the Home Secretary by the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in regard to the women police. Those interested in the matter up to last year are profoundly grateful to the Home Secretary for the action which I understand he has taken in giving them what is popularly called "the power of arrest." In doing so he has taken away what was considered by the Geddes Committee to be the one great obstacle to their usefulness. But as this is in Committee of a new House, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know, in the first place, quite how many women police there are at the present time, what they are doing, and the form of their organisation, because, as I say, there has been great confidence in the sympathy with which he has dealt with the subject. I am quite sure that all those interested in the matter would be grateful to know from him what is exactly the present state of the case.
Might I again urge upon the Committee for one moment one or two considerations which were debated fully last year, and which I do not propose to tire the Committee with at any length now. This matter was debated on several occasions last year. The most unfortunate result was that when it came to an issue in the debate on the Home Office Vote that it was decided on a question
of prejudice. The House and the Committee always respond to an appeal for fair play, and on that occasion the inference was raised that there had been an intrigue between the women police in Scotland Yard and certain persons outside the Government service. It was absolutely unfounded. There was no possibility of rebutting it at the time, but I have personal information in quite a number of cases that those who, in principle, were strongly in favour of the retention of a sufficient number of women police voted against them, simply because they thought there had been some discreditable intrigue, for which, in fact, there was no foundation whatever.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth has stated the objects which the women police could effectually carry out, and may I add, from my own experience, that I can most heartily support what she has said? No one in their senses supposes that you can ask any woman to be a policewoman, whatever be her training or her temperament, or that you can ask them to do any sort of duties that the ordinary male constable does at the present time. They are useful, if they are well trained, for special kinds of work, and special kinds only, but speaking, not as a sentimentalist, but merely in order to get the ordinary proper police work carried out well, there are some kinds of police work which can better be effected by trained women than by any male constable that exists. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division has referred to some of them. There is the question of questioning small children when they are brought up for examination, escorting prisoners, watching suicides, and dealing with offences of soliciting in the streets. There is no question whatever but that a great deal of that work can be much more effectually dealt with by women constables, if they are properly trained and women of a proper character, than ever they can be dealt with by male constables.
Lastly, I would urge two points on the attention of the Committee. Last year a great deal was said about the expense. That question was gone into in detail, and it was pointed out, item by item, that when the question of expense was really examined, the gain that there might be in largely reducing the numbers of the women police in the Metropolitan Force in
London was whittled away until it disappeared. I take one case that ought to be dealt with as a mere matter of preventive work and on account of the expense that can be saved—on the unpleasant subject of venereal disease. There is no question, from the statistics themselves, but that girl after girl was taken by the women police or helped to early treatment when, under any other circumstances, she did not go for treatment until a later stage, and judged merely as a question of finance, and not as a question either of the moral or physical health or well-being of the community, she was treated for shillings, where pounds, and scores of pounds, would have been necessary at a later stage.
Therefore, since this is a Committee of the new House of Commons, might I urge hon. Members not to lose sight of the importance of this question, judged not merely from a sentimental, but from a sheer business point of view, in doing the police work of the metropolis properly? We do not believe it is a wise economy to diminish the force, and at the present moment the reason why those who are in favour of it have held their peace and have done nothing this Session to press the case more strongly is that we believe that in the present Home Secretary, as shown already by his action, we have a man who sympathises with the legitimate objects that we have in mind, who has

already shown it, and who, we trust, will look into the matter for himself and decide in our favour.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I only desire to refer shortly to what my hon. Friend has just said. He asked what was the exact number of the force at present. The force to-day consists of two inspectors, three sergeants and 15 patrols. That forms the number of 20 which it was desired to retain, and the only reasons why the number is not in excess of 20 are reasons of economy. Certain alterations in their status, about which my hon. Friend knows, came into force not very long ago. They are now sworn in as members of the force, have the power of arrest, and perform the duties which my hon. Friend has detailed, and, as far as I know, perform them very well. He may be quite sure that I am a sympathiser with the work of the women police, and I am perfectly convinced that their work is of very great value in many directions, to which he and other speakers have referred. The question of expense is one which I have to consider, however, and I cannot hold out any hope of being able to increase the number. As far as their work goes, it is well worthy of the tributes paid to it.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,060,491, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 205.

Division No. 288.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Kirkwood, D.


Attlee, C. R.
Gosling, Harry
Lansbury, George


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lawson, John James


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Leach, W.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Bonwick, A.
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Brotherton, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Buckie, J.
Hancock, John George
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Burgess, S.
Harris, Percy A.
M'Entee, V. L.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hastings, Patrick
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
March, S.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hayday, Arthur
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Chapple, W. A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Middleton, G.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Morel, E. D.


Collison, Levi
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Herriotts, J.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Darbishire, C. W.
Hill, A.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hinds, John
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.
O'Grady, Captain James


Duffy, T. Gavan
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold


Duncan, C.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Paling, W.


Ede, James Chuter
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Phillipps, Vivian


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Potts, John S.


Pringle, W. M. R.
Snell, Harry
Watts, Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richards, R.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, W.


Ritson, J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Saklatvala, S.
Tillett, Benjamin
Wintringham, Margaret


Salter, Dr. A.
Tout, W. J.
Wright, W.


Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, C. P.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Sexton, James
Turner, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smillie, Robert
Warne, G. H.



Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan Jones.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Foreman, Sir Henry
Murchison, C. K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot
Nall, Major Joseph


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Furness, G. J.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Austin, Sir Herbert
Garland, C. S.
Pease, William Edwin


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Banks, Mitchell
Goff, Sir R. Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gould, James C.
Peto, Basil E.


Barnston, Major Harry
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pielou, D. P.


Becker, Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Halstead, Major D.
Remer, J. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bruford, R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Button, H. S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Houfton, John Plowright
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Singleton, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hughes, Collingwood
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume, G. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cope, Major William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tubbs, S. W.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lorimer, H. D.
Wallace, Captain E.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lort-Williams, J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lougher, L.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Ednam, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manville, Edward
Winterton, Earl


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wise, Frederick


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £642,935, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England and Wales, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."—[Note: £500,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500.
I regret that owing to the Rules of this House it is not possible for me to discuss this important subject of prisons in the way I should like. There is no subject of so much importance to those who have to inhabit them as this question of prisons. I would like hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and my own hon. Friends as well, to accept my word on this question—and I was not treated badly in either prison which I was in—that there is no man good enough to be the governor of a prison under the present Regulations, and there are no men good enough to be warders under those Regulations, which give them powers of life and death over the poor men, boys, women and girls who come under their charge. I do not charge these men with being more brutal than I am myself, but the rules they have to administer and the system of discipline they have to carry out is, in my judgment, so barbarous that the best man or woman will succumb to its influence.
I want to say a word about religion in prisons, because of all the cant, humbug and hypocrisy indulged in by humanity, the Chaplains' religious services in prisons are the worst. I never in my life attended religious services where I have been more blasphemed in thought and word than in these prison chapels. The idea of thinking about religion when there are a dozen men standing on platforms to see that I do not speak a word to my fellow men or look in any way that is not straight ahead, and then to be told that we are "Dear, beloved brethren"—[Laughter]—that makes hon. Members laugh, but it made me weep. We who sit in this House, if it happens to be a quarter to three, pay some sort of respect to the form of religion, but I hope that some of us have got something else
besides the form of religion in us. When I see this blasphemy, I wish to enter my protest against it. The men who administer—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (SPECIAL GRANTS REGULATIONS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. LAWSON: This is the first occasion since I have been a Member of this House that I have raised a question on the Adjournment. The House will remember that during the past two or three weeks there have been quite a number of questions asked of the Pensions Minister concerning certain regulations of the Special Grants Committee which have been withdrawn. I can quite understand that the House finds it difficult to appreciate exactly what the withdrawal of these regulations means, because pension work in all its branches is extremely complicated. This is a most serious step which the Pensions Minister has taken, and therefore it is that I have asked the opportunity of saying a few words to the House to-night and of putting the case to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact of the matter is that certain regulations of the Special Grants Committee have been withdrawn. Two of these regulations give discretionary power to the Special Grants Committee to give allowances, or, if they like, pensions, in what we may call border-line cases, For instance, the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. H. Parker) mentioned a, case here the other day in which a man had had his pension refused. He had been before the Appeal Tribunal, his pension had been refused, and he had been ordered back to work; and in a few days, after doing hard physical work, a piece of shrapnel had worked its way
into his heart and killed him. That man's case has been before the tribunal, and a final decision was given upon it. There is no Regulation that fits that man, except, it may be, that the right hon. Gentleman will find a very ingenious, way of getting round it. That is an illustration, to put it mildly, of a thousand or two of cases which do not come under any regulation; and because of that the House has given the Special Grants Committee the statutory right to frame a regulation giving discretion to give pensions in cases which have been refused benefit under the Ministry of Pensions.
The other regulation is that relating to sickness grants to widows and their children. The widows, it is true, have £1 a week, The right hon. Gentleman says the cost of living has gone down, and that that is a reason for withdrawing the regulation under which the Special Grants Committee can give widows and their children special allowances when they are sick. But I put this to the right hon. Gentleman because in one of his answers he has told us that the cost of living has gone down, and he has given that as a reason for the withdrawal of this regulation. Although the cost of living has gone down, the Government has not dared to reduce the soldier's pension, and if there is a case for the increased pensions to continue, then there is a case for the widows' sickness allowance to continue. If the right hon. Gentleman's Department is going to withdraw these things, let them do it frankly and straightforwardly, and not trade upon the ignorance of the House and of the people generally in relation to these matters. I want to say this further word of explanation. The Special Grants Committee has its centre in London. It is a special statutory body. It is true that it is a branch of the Ministry of Pensions, but it has had a separate existence, and it has had peculiar developments of its own to meet certain types of cases. It has had the right to make its own regulations, it is true with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, but its regulations have been approved for some years, and are now withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to draw attention, further, to this fact, that the right hon. Gentleman for some year or two has almost cried
shame upon some of us when we have claimed that these economies have been dictated rather by the Treasury than on any grounds of justice. In this case we know we are right. I have here a copy of the Treasury letter which first began this game. The matter has gone on for something like 18 months now. One of the last letters was dated the 4th January, 1922, and in it they say, referring to the Special Grants Committee's regulations:
A further financial report on the working of the Rules as amended should be furnished to their Lordships by the 31st December next, as a result of which my Lords will hold themselves free to call for the modification or withdrawal of any Regulations. … While my Lords will not press for the immediate withdrawal of all such grants, they would be glad if the Minister and the Special Grants Committee will consider whether such grants should not in all cases be withdrawn by 31st December next.
I hope that after this, and after all the correspondence upon these lines which we could produce, the right hon. Gentleman does not argue cases of withdrawal of this description on the grounds of justice, because here is the big-business Treasury giving him his orders, and he has to march to his orders. He is a very estimable gentleman. He has courtesy, and he is frank when dealing with administration. When I went to school I knew an old proverb, that courtesy costs nothing and good manners are cheap. Since I have met the Pensions Minister I have begun to doubt that old proverb. I sometimes wish that he would give me a black eye, and give justice to the people over whom he is supposed to watch.
I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact. It is not merely a party cry or an agitator's cry with which he has to deal, but a matter concerning one of the branches of his own Department. The Special Grants Committee for 18 months have been in conflict with him. They have a great obligation to these people—no less than that of attending to the educational needs of children whose fathers have been killed in the service of the country, of seeing that the man who has a just claim does not want for the good things of life or rather for the means of existence, and that the widows and children of men who died in the War do not want in time of sickness. There has been a conflict, and when questioned by the hon. Member for Nelson
and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), this afternoon, as to whether the withdrawal of these Regulations was with the approval of the Special Grants Committee the right hon. Gentleman, in that wonderfully quick, jumpy way he has, tried to mislead the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will not put it that way, but I will say this—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not impute dishonest motives.

Mr. LAWSON: I will not put it that way. I withdraw that. All I say—and I want to say this without qualification—that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is one of the most difficult from which to get any straight information that I know in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon did not give a clear answer, at any rate, to the points that were put. Here is the Special Grants Committee's own statement. They are speaking about the Regulations under which they have discretion. The statement is that any amendment to their Regulations could not be issued with their approval.
We cannot change these views or depart from these decisions consistently with what we believe to be our duty in the sphere of usefulness which we were appointed to fulfil, and which we claim we have fulfilled with advantage to the State, and to the officers and soldiers, and their dependants, whose interests have been in our charge.
So the right hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that he has withdrawn these Regulations in the teeth of the Special Grants Committee. If he puts new Regulations down, he will do so on his own responsibility and in the teeth of the opposition of that Committee. May I draw attention to the Report issued by the right hon. Gentleman's own Departmental Committee, of which he was chairman, in 1921. This is one of the paragraphs in the Report which deals with the Special Grants Committee. I will read it so that the House may understand the question:
The value of the Special Grants Committee as part of the existing pensions system is two-fold. In the first place it is thereby possible for hard cases which have a real claim on the State, and which cannot be met under the strict terms of the Royal Warrant, to be dealt with by this independent representative body acting under discretionary powers. Secondly, where the need for the concession is not common to all classes of pensioners, grants
may be made on a discretionary basis, and these result in greater economy than can be obtained by any provision of the Royal Warrant, which must either exclude many hard cases or include a much larger class than is contemplated by the concession proposed. The reasons which led the Select Committee, in 1915, to recommend that judicial and discretionary functions should be given to a representative body, apart from a State Department administering pensions and allowances, were based on the fact that decisions given by an independent, non-official body, which is not liable to outside pressure, and which contains representatives of the Services, of Labour, of the legal profession, and of the local war pensions committees, will be less subject to pressure than decisions reached by a Government Department.
So the right hon. Gentleman on those grounds recommended the retention of this Special Grants Committee. Instead of that we have sickness allowances to the amount of £2,500 a year taken from the widows and children of men who have died. Is that worthy of the Pensions Minister? Is there any hon. Member opposite who would defend that upon the ground of economy? When I see thousands of people being cut down by the axe, by people who get anything from £10,000 to £20,000 a year from the British Federation of Industry, I feel inclined to say very bitter things. I have come to the conclusion that the best thing one can do is not to spend much more time in this House but to get outside and I invite the British Legion and all the organised forces that deal with the ex-service men and their dependants to join in the fight. £2,500 deducted by the well-fed starvelings of the British Federation of Industry, because that is all the Government policy is at present. The right hon. Gentleman is doing their work efficiently. However, much he may try to conceal this matter, he cannot hide the fact that he is up against a branch of his own Pensions Ministry that is taking £2,500 a year off the widows and children, and that is taking away the only hope there is for some men to get the benefit of the doubt. The House and the country should know that these men have a case, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the House are going to right that wrong very soon.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member has asked for a truthful and clear statement. It would have been more convenient if he had left
me at any rate time in which to reply instead of taking up the whole of the time except nine minutes. He made a bitter personal attack upon one hon. Member, well knowing that it is perfectly impossible for that hon. Member to have any opportunity of replying. That does not reflect very well either upon his courtesy towards that hon. Member or upon his regard for the courtesies of Debate. He is anxious that nobody should be misled. Therefore, I will take the first opportunity of correcting the wrong impression created by his own speech. I am perfectly certain that the very serious error into which he has fallen is entirely due to his lack of knowledge of the subject which he has selected for discussion. He has made reference to the British Legion. I will say this: The British Legion do understand what they are talking about when they discuss pensions, and the British Legion would not have fallen into the error of having no knowledge of the particular Regulation which the hon. Member has selected for his speech, and upon which he has spent 20 minutes. He began by telling us about a man who died from a shrapnel wound. That man was examined, I believe, for other things. It is perfectly obvious that if some new discovery had been made, he could have put up a claim under Article 9, and could have got a pension. There is no reference whatever to men in the Regulation which has been withdrawn, and that if this Regulation was substantially continued, the man to whom the hon. Member referred could have obtained absolutely nothing, because there is no reference whatever to cases of that sort. The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood the Regulation.
It is obvious that in so small a sum it is not a question of economy but a question of principle. I am glad to notice that the hon. Member has, after a fortnight of assertion, apparently withdrawn the charge that we have issued a new Regulation. We have not issued a new Regulation, but on two successive Thursdays, at Question time, he or his friends have persisted in asserting that a new Regulation has been issued.

Mr. LAWSON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us two weeks go that the Regulations were about to be printed?

Major TRYON: No new Regulation has been issued on this point, and if the hon. Member will only listen I will endeavour to make it clear to him. It is a very complicated question, and I am certain that the very serious mistakes he has made are perfectly sincere and are due to his failure to understand a very technical point.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he said that the new Regulations were to be printed?

Major TRYON: We have issued no new Regulation on the subject referred to. The position taken up by the hon. Member is that the Committee should be allowed to expend public money without control or without the sanction of the Minister responsible to Parliament. In setting up this scheme, he not only ignores the responsible Minister but the rights of this House. The importance attached by the hon. Member to the Regulation leaped out at the end of his speech, when he held out the hope of having a successful political campaign in the country on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? I will tell hon. Members. Because he has grossly exaggerated the whole of this question. The Votes of the Ministry of Pensions this year are over £73,000,000. Of that only £165,000 are concerned with the Special Grants Committee. Therefore, the work for the Special Grants Committee is only a fraction of the work of the Ministry.
Only £2,500 is in question out of £165,000 for the Special Grants Committee; so that it is a fraction of what is itself only a fraction of the work of the Ministry. The Special Grants Committee was created during the War. It was entrusted with the exercise of certain powers formerly belonging to the Statutory Committee. Among its functions were the powers of making supplementary grants, in addition to pensions. The Committee exercise their functions under Regulations to be drawn up by them and submitted to the Minister of Pensions for his approval.
The hon. Member has got the thing the wrong way about. All these Regulations are issued subject to the approval of the Minister, not subject to the approval of the Committee. When the Committee was started a lump sum was set aside, and
that lump sum, naturally, came to an end after the Committee had been in existence for some time. When that sum was coming to an end it was arranged between the Ministry and the Treasury that any future expenditure of the Committee should be taken on the Ministry Vote. This altered the whole relationship between the Ministry and the Committee. When the expenditure was transferred to the Ministry Vote, the Minister was necessarily put in the position of having to assure himself that the expenditure was in all respects reasonably charged, and he must accordingly be in a position to withhold his approval of any Regulation.
It was because of these considerations that my predecessor did not give an unqualified approval to the last Regulations in 1920. His approval was given for a very definte and limited period only. To make clear that the approval could be withdrawn, there was a notice at the head of the printed Regulations. There has been no forcing of a new Regulation on the Committee. What happened was that this Regulation was approved only for a limited time, and that time has elapsed. The hon. Member has naturally forgotten that last Autumn we had to settle not merely one problem. There was first the problem whether we could continue this, which is a provision affecting a very few people. But there was also the problem whether we should alter the rates of pensions which were due to be reduced. The one issue only affected a little over £2,000, but it involved expenditure which was clearly outside the proper limits which were laid down by Parliament for the work of the Ministry. The other was a decision amounting to millions. On the small point, on principle, we decided against the extension of the Regulations, but on the big point, which involved this Government in large annual expenditure, we decided in favour of the extension.
I hope that the hon. Member who is going to make speeches in the country as to the amounts taken from widows and children will let it be known that it affects only to an amount of slightly over a penny a year the people concerned, while in the case of the decision which we made in reference to the pensions for widows, the amount was no less than 3s. a week. So that while we saved on the small matter, the big
decision was given in favour of the pensioner. It was a small Regulation, purely a War-time provision. We have no power to incur expenditure on the sickness of a man whose sickness was not due to the War. We should clearly, therefore, not do more for the widows than we should do for the pensioners themselves. It is a very small amount, but it involves a principle which limits our work to the proper limits laid down by Parliament. I hope the hon. Member when going about the country will state all the facts which I am giving here. I am sure he will tell them that the decision involving 3s. a week was given ill favour of the widows, while the decision amounting to, roughly speaking, a penny a head per year was given the other way. He does not seem to be very enthusiastic about making that point known. But those are the facts. Therefore, perhaps I should remind the House that we are clearly within our rights. The hon. Member was in error in suggesting that the particular wounded man he mentioned would have benefited in any way by this Regulation. These Regulations were specially provided to supplement the separation allowances of men who were away from home serving in the War. They were extended to all widows during the period of the War, and they were continued as a temporary measure.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman—

Major TRYON: I cannot give way. These Regulations were clearly limited in time, and they have lapsed. The contention of the hon. Member is that there should be an expenditure of money without the control of the Minister. His claim, in effect, sets up the Committee above the House itself. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne who put this question down evidently thought it of such little importance that he did not turn up at the proper time to put it, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this Debate so that the truth may be made known.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half after Eleven o'Clock.